Canzoneri,+Frank

Frank J. Canzoneri LD Judging Philosophy

__Overview __: I have been involved with Debate since 1985 having competed in Policy and LD at Holy Cross School in New Orleans. I served as Director of Debate at Holy Cross from 1989-1998 having coached Policy, LD, Congress and Speech events on the Local and National Circuit. Although the bulk of my coaching (and judging) experience came prior to the transformation of LD into a more “wide open” endeavor, I am very happy with how the game has become more progressive in terms of argument attack options.

__Speed __: The speed at which you deliver argumentation is up to you. I have judged countless rather speedy policy rounds over the years so any attempts at “LD spreading” will usually not phase me. No matter how fast you choose to speak, please be intelligible.

__Evidence & Analysis: __ Please do not simply be a “mindless brief reader.” Provide //analysis// throughout the round to supplement your cards.

__Counterplans __: I am a fan of counterplans in LD as the negative burden is to dejustify the resolution through any legitimate means necessary, including the consideration of a counterproposal to the affirmative. I believe that Fiat is an equal opportunity power held by both debaters. Conditionality is also fine as we are in “debate land.” I also have no problem with Plan Inclusive Counterplans (PICS) However, if you wish for me to consider a counterplan in making my decision for the round, it must include the necessary elements.

__Disadvantages __: I approve of disadvantages in LD. Please correctly signpost it as a disadvantage and not simply as another case specific argument. Necessary elements of a d/a must exist for me to consider it as a d/a and not just an independent case specific argument.

__Topicality __: I approve of T in LD as the terms of the resolution should be open to interpretation by both debaters. Please include the necessary elements of a topicality argument (standards, violation(s), Voting Issue) I also like a good “Extra-T” and “Effects-T” argument if argued well. If you run a Reverse Voting Issue (RVI) make sure that it is well thought out and logically explained or it will not be considered in making a decision in the round.

__Kritiks __: PROCEED WITH CAUTION. Do not run a K merely as a “time suck.” Make sure all Kritiks follow the necessary structure of a properly written Kritik. [link(s) impact(s), alternatives(s)]

__<span style="font-family: &#39;Arial&#39;,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">***Case Specific Argumentation __<span style="font-family: &#39;Arial&#39;,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">: Generic Negative C/P’s, D/A’s, T, and Kritiks will be considered by this judge; but they should be supplemented by //solid case argumentation// presented by both sides in the round.

__<span style="font-family: &#39;Arial&#39;,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">Final comments __<span style="font-family: &#39;Arial&#39;,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">: <span style="font-family: &#39;Arial&#39;,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">*** Please provide CLASH throughout the round and WEIGH your value and pragmatic argumentation versus the opponent and provide a CRYSTALLIZATION of KEY VOTERS at the bottom of 1NR and throughout 2AR. //<span style="font-family: &#39;Arial&#39;,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">…Best of luck competing in this activity which will positively transform your life! //