DiTullio,+Katie

(2010-2011)


 * Name:** Katie DiTullio
 * Affiliations:** Bishop Guertin


 * Background:**

(1) I debated from 2006-2010 at Bishop Guertin High School. During my senior year, I attended major national tournaments, and debated in elimination rounds at almost all of them; I also qualified to the TOC.

(2) Therefore, I am obviously completely fine with speed, and I can flow quite well.

(3) I was primarily a 2A/1N in high school. That’s mostly just an FYI, because I don’t think it has any substantial amount of influence on the way I evaluate arguments/issues in a debate round.

(4) I read both policy and critical affs in high school (critical ranging from not too crazy, to no plan text). We primarily went for kritiks or impact turns in the 2NR, and as a 1N, I very frequently took topicality in the block. That being said

and you should feel free to read them in front of me.
 * I am very, very comfortable with CPs and disads,

that I enjoy listening to kritiks more so than I do policy arguments. This is definitely not the case. Feel free to read them, however. I have a decent to good understanding of the most commonly read Ks but if you’re reading anything a little more out there, I probably have little to no background knowledge of the philosopher/argument.
 * Do not assume that because I debated at BG/was a “K debater” in high school

(5) (This needs to be said) Yes, I read Spark/wipeout/other impact turns in high school, with great frequency. I like good impact turn debates very, very much. If that’s your thing, awesome. If not, don’t just read wipeout because you think I’m more likely to vote for you. Not the case, at all. I am only mentioning this because I am aware of a few instances in which teams chose to read it/a similar argument because I was in the back of the room. If you can’t give a good 2NR on something, avoid reading it.


 * Currently:**

I coach for Bishop Guertin.


 * General remarks:**

I have judged more high school rounds than the average college freshman, I think. I also enjoy judging high school rounds quite a bit more than I expect most people my age do. I find myself thinking a lot more about debate outside of tournaments than I ever did during high school, and developing an even deeper appreciation of the activity.

Though I coach for a high school, I’m not extremely familiar with all of the topic literature. Just something to keep in mind.

I’m fine with speed, but it should not trade off with clarity. If I am having trouble understanding you, I will definitely let you know.

I don’t think I have any strong predispositions or biases toward or against certain arguments. I would much prefer to listen to you debate about whatever it is you’re good at/enjoy talking about then listen to you read an argument you’re not particularly adept at just because you think I will like it more.

I will only read evidence in the round if I feel I have to do so in order to make my decision. I much prefer to let the debaters interpret the evidence for me. I feel debate should be more about argument quality than evidence quality. That doesn’t mean you can read terrible evidence and expect to get away with it, however.

I don’t default to offense-defense. I think it is entirely possible for an aff to, for example, beat a disad by extending great defensive arguments in the 2AR.

Impact comparison/analysis in the final two rebuttals is of the utmost importance; however, I think this type of impact work needs to start earlier in the round. It is probably impossible to give a good 2AR or 2NR without impact analysis, whether you're debating the politics disad or no neg fiat.

Bottom line: I love debate, and I assume you probably do as well. Respect your partner, the other team, and me. Have fun, and learn from your mistakes. All of the information contained here is meant to serve as a mere guideline/explain to you how I will resolve issues unresolved by the debaters in the round/make you aware of my predispositions.

That being said, **I will listen to any (and I do mean any) argument, and vote on anything**. The debate is about you, not about me and my preferences or biases.


 * Arguments:**

__Topicality__ I like T debates more than most people do. Since I am a 2A/a 1N who almost always took T in the block in high school, I am definitely sympathetic to both sides of the limits/predictability debate. I am a fan of topicality debates with good evidence and lots of impact-level analysis. I can be persuaded to evaluate topicality through reasonability or competing interpretations, but honestly, if left up to me, I would lean slightly toward reasonability, especially if the 1NC violation seems to just arbitrarily and unfairly limit out the aff. Also, it is very difficult to persuade me that T is not a voting issue. I can possibly be persuaded that theory outweighs, however. I am not a fan of RVIs or kritiks of topicality. Make these arguments if you must, but understand your analysis must be pretty outstanding if you want me to vote on them.

__Disads__ I like them, a lot. I especially like really good turns-case analysis with evidence to back it up. I don’t hate the politics disad as much as I used to. I don’t really hate it at all now, actually, so feel free to read it. For the neg – you should really make sure that aff links to the DA, and that your link evidence is pretty good. I only mention this because it’s been an issue in too many of the rounds I’ve judged. For the aff – 1AR needs to answer turns case/impact analysis. I am persuaded by good defensive arguments, such as: uniqueness overwhelms the link/no internal link. Politics theory arguments are fine, but you should only go for them as a last resort/if they are dropped.

__Counterplans__ I also like these, especially when they are well-researched and strategic. I think CPs should always have solvency advocates. I'm not going to automatically vote against you if you don't have one, obviously, but that's just something to keep in mind. For the aff - make smart permutations. Make sure you point out the internal link distinctions between the aff and the CP. I find CPs link to net benefits a lot more often than people in round seem to realize. I am pretty persuaded by this argument especially if it is backed up with evidence.

__Kritiks__ I like listening to them, but I find that debaters often just don't run them well. I have read a fair amount of critical literature/I have been in and watched plenty of good K debates, which probably means I hold these arguments to a higher threshold than some judges. The biggest problem I have in kritik debates is usually the viability of the alternative and the specificity of the link evidence. You'll make me happiest if you read aff-specific kritiks, or at the very least, have link evidence that talks about what the aff actually does. For the aff - if explained well, case outweighs is always an extremely persuasive argument to me. Don't get freaked out when there is a weird K in the 1NC you've never heard of. Just make smart arguments and you'll be fine. Also, (this should be noted) I don't think you can beat a kritik by simply reading cards that say, for example, "Nietzsche's ideas were used to justify Nazism." You have to beat the __substance__ of the argument/philosophical position.

__Theory__ I definitely have some predispositions here, but I can be persuaded that just about anything is bad or good. The biggest issue in theory debates usually tends to be lack of well-warranted impact analysis. I'll listen to theory debates, and feel free to go for theory in the last two rebuttals if that's your thing. I won't enjoy it, but I won't complain about it too much, either. __Conditionality__ - is generally good. One CP or K and the status quo is necessary to adequately test the affirmative / preserve neg. flex, etc. One CP and one K are also pretty fair - necessary to test the aff from different ideological perspectives. Two CPs can sometimes be justified. More than two CPs = wholly unnecessary and pretty abusive, makes a good 2AC impossible, etc. I will be strongly persuaded by a good 2AR on conditionality bad in that instance. __Other CP theory__ - CPs should be competitive, obviously. I find that most of the time, consult/condition CPs are, at best, artificially competitive. Being a 2A, I'm not a huge fan of these types of CPs. Of course in some instances they are competitive, in which case I'm totally fine listening to them. It's up to you to figure this out. That being said, I also think textual and functional competition are both good/necessary, but can be persuaded that one outweighs the other. PICs are generally awesome, as long as you're PIC-ing out of some part of the aff's solvency mechanism, and not just changing the number "100,000" to "95,000" or reading a dumb word PIC. Not all word PICs are dumb, but many of them are. __Also__ - I tend to default to theory as a reason to reject the argument. You definitely need to explain to me why it's a reason to reject the team if that's what you're going for.

__Performance__ I have never debated in a round in which the other team has done what I consider to be entirely "performance." I have also never judged a performance round. That being said, I am completely open to song/poetry/dance/etc, whatever your thing happens to be. Keep in mind, though, that I very strongly feel the aff needs to be somewhat based in the resolution. If you stand up and talk about something that's important to you for 8 minutes, that's great, but I don't think it's fair to the other team, and am pretty persuaded by framework, in that instance. I suppose I could be persuaded, however, that saying something like "debate bad" outweighs topicality...not entirely sure as I have zero experience with this type of debate.


 * Speaker points**

< 26... you seriously offended me in some way 26 - 26.5 is below average 27 - 27.5 is around average for me. 28 is pretty solid 28.5 is, you might deserve a speaker award 29 is, you belong in the top 10-15 speakers 29.5 is, you are very close to perfection 30 is, you are amazing, and your speech is the best (or one of the best) I expect to hear during the season

I have no experience with the 100-point scale as of now. If/when I do, I will update this to include those numbers.

Humor, creativity, smart and/or funny cross-ex's, and a clearly well-developed strategy will increase your speaker points. Cheating, bad cross-ex's, rudeness, excessive vulgarity, and condescension will decrease your speaker points.
 * Note: I really appreciate good humor. If you're not funny, don't try to be.


 * Other**

Feel free to ask me questions before the round, or email me at katie.ditullio@gmail.com