Imparato,+Gareth

Background: 4 Years of National Circuit Debate at Baltimore City College High School, cleared places, went 4-4 at senior year TOC 4 Years of Intermittent Policy Background (that statement is more regarding policy arguments in LD than me judging policy, if you find me judging your policy round don't expect me to be up on any particularly complex theory questions etc.)

Currently I'm a debate coach for Ridge High School and I'm doing some college Parli for Yale if that matters to you.

Short: In general I judge based on what's on the flow but it is worth pointing out that I am open to new Aff cross-apps and other arguments like that, as long as they're just putting arguments in the last speech in new places. Speed is a matter of clarity in general, I'll say clear if there's a problem. Also it is feasibly possible that you'll just be going too fast in which case I'll say slow down and be vaguely embarrassed. I have a solid grounding in policy argumentation and critical lit and encourage that both be run in front of me assuming that you have actual good cases that fall into those categories. I do, however, think that the "K" as an argumentative structure is often ported fairly poorly to LD and I prefer critical lit with a more traditional or original framework. I am also very comfortable with an old-school value and value criterion case predicated off of normal philosophy if that's how you do. That statement made I'm probably least comfortable with particularly dense analytical philosophy of any major form of argumentation in debate. That just means you need to explain it. Theory is a matter of competing interps but I am open to RVI's and/or well articulated and impacted claims of reasonability, especially if it's phrased in the context of which arguments I should be "reasonable" about (e.g. potential abuse is not a voter, etc.).

Long(ish):

As a general philosophy on debate I prefer a substantive, technical debate that doesn't rely too heavily on nit-picky claims of drops.That's just to say that I think that it's the role of the judge to compare arguments that have been articulated as having some clash on a truth value rather than just relying on the most clearly articulated clash.

Calling Evidence: I'll do it, and I'll especially do it when evidence is in conflict. If I see something sketchy that wasn't brought up in round I might mention it in the rfd but I won't let it impact anything unless I think something is horribly miscut and you probably knew it in which case I'll dock a speaker point.

Speaks: I think it makes the most sense to give out speaks in the context of the tournament so perhaps one or two 30s per tournament, a few 29s, many 28s etc. with an attempt to average 27.5. Also just in general, being obnoxious and snarky about //arguments// is fine, but being that way about //people// is just pretty rude and will result in lowered speaks.

Theory: I default to the ideas that theory comes first and that it's a matter of competing interps. If one debater justifies neither of those things and the other side simply points that out and moves on without responding to the arguments then the first debater will win, but if the other debater justifies any alternative conceptions of theory they will obviously be ahead on those counts. I am willing to listen to why fairness doesn't come first, etc. although you must provide an alternative metric by which to judge pre-fiat implications. If you run a ten point fairness is not a voter block I will view that as defense, although those could be reasons to prefer education, or freeing oppressed peoples, or whatever else you want the metric to be. I am open to RVI's, well-articulated reasonability, etc. to limit the use of theory as a strategic tool. Debates that collapse into theory will probably lose speaks for everyone, largely because these debates are usually poorly done. I prefer substantive debate but if you debate theory particularly well (e.g. off of blocks that you just spread through and intelligently) you should be fine speaks-wise. None of this will have an impact on my decision.

Critical Arguments: I ran em, I like em, if you're good at them you should run them in front of me. I don't think the lit is particularly inaccessible but if you just hide behind k-jargon you'll probably end up poorly articulating your position and that'll make me mad. You do at least have a burden to give your opponent a good explanation for your arguments.

Policy: I like the event and I like the arguments, just don't be dumb about them. Your impact scenarios need to make sense and will ideally include evidence cut from somewhere other than just a policy backfile. more than utilitarian arguments however I particularly like PICs (especially word PICs), other interesting counterplans, and depending on the topic, plans. On Animal Rights I think plans are questionable and should probably not be overly specific.

Analytic Philosophy: The basic stuff (Rawls, K-gaard, Gauthier, Locke, etc.) I am fine with and you don't have to give me particularly long or in-depth justifications or explanations of their basic arguments. If you want to do something fancy or obscure I probably haven't heard of it (although I have a decent grounding in ancient philosophy if that's the way you roll). I also generally find really weird analytic stuff difficult to understand so at some point you should break it down for me.

Cross-Ex: Flex prep is okay but I prefer using the full 3 minutes of cross-ex just because I think it's important to clarify and score points during that period. Cross-ex will probably be important to speaks, although if you give baller speeches and try to use flex-prep then that's not gonna sink you. Questions outside of the realm of cross-ex are always okay, and I generally dislike it when opponents say "I don't like flex-prep" or "the time for questioning has elapsed."