Zompetti+Joe

Jon Zompetti
Affiliation = Chattahoochee/Illinois State Univ School Strikes = Chattahoochee CXphilosophy = Joseph Zompetti, Illinois State University 2004-2005 Judge “Philosophy” 4 Tournaments Judged This Year General things you should know -- I expect and reward civil, friendly debates. Rudeness will almost assuredly result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. This includes situations when debaters feel impelled to speak constantly for their partner during the cross-ex. I also dislike reading evidence at the end of a debate. My expectation is that if debaters do their jobs sufficiently in the round, then I shouldn’t have to read evidence. If I call for evidence, or if your arguments require me to read evidence, then you are tacitly asking me to intervene. Topicality -- I will vote for the team who offers the best interpretation for debate. This may include abuse arguments, but I’m more compelled by questions of limits. Other Theory Issues -- I’m not a big fan of knock-out, drawn-out theory debates, although I will vote on them. My animosity toward them is geared more toward how they’re executed, and less with their substance. More often than not, debaters make theory arguments at incomprehensible speeds, expect me to flow every word, and then don’t understand why I may not have a “we increase education” blip from the 1AR on my flow. If you go for theory in front of me, you should spend time on it, and go a little slower. Kritiks/Criticisms/Performances -- These arguments are fine. In general, I find myself voting against criticisms more than for them. Why? Because teams typically run them with other arguments so they receive scant attention in the constructives. By the time the 2NR and 2AR roll-around, I’m left with classic debate buzzwords about how “performative resistance is key” or how “their discourse justifies” without any argument construction. In short, K debates have become too truncated for me. I still vote for them on occasion, when a team devotes enough time and energy to the link and alternative levels so that the argument actually make sense. Critical Affirmatives – They're okay. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, but I prefer every Aff to have a plan. It's okay if you use it as a starting point, criticize the SQ, or the like, but you need to defend a plan for there to be clash and for the Negative to have a meaningful debate. As a corollary, I think that Aff "fiat good" or "policy good" framework arguments, esp. in the 1AC, are dumb. Just because you're Aff and you get to speak first doesn't mean fiat and/or policy are good. Defend the framework, don't whine about it. Other Tips -- I dislike tag-line reiterations and underdeveloped arguments. I much rather prefer a high-tech execution of one or two key arguments. I also dislike it when 2AC’s simply extend 1AC evidence without explaining the warrants of the cards or without describing how the evidence answers the 1NC arguments.