Maritato,+Jimbo

Jimbo Maritato Marist College Director of Debate Years Judging: College Policy: 5 Rounds Judged on Topic: 45+

UPDATED FOR THE 2007 NDT

The comments below are long winded and detailed -- but if you read them there's a pretty substantial chance you'll actually get the ballot. I'm a big fan of judge adaptation and feel that learning to talk to different people from varying backgrounds/perspectives is a critical component of speech, debate and advocacy. This is why I provide this much feedback.

I direct debate at Marist College. I have been involved in policy debate for the past six years. I debated during my senior year at Marist College (2001 – 2002) while persuing my BS in Information Technology. In the following year I assistant coached for Marist alongside Max Schnurer and Andy Ellis. I then moved on to the University of Wyoming where I assisted with the policy debate squad (2003-2005) and taught public speaking while pursuing my MA in Communication. My focus of study was culture jamming and mass media and my MA thesis argued for the progressive transformative potential of mass mediated popular culture. I have since returned to Marist to direct the program. My loves in life are computers, debate, social movements, and popular culture/cultural studies.

The best debate rounds are those where the two teams in the round meet each other somewhere in the middle, find an element of clash, and hash it out in depth. I like well thought, well spoken, and passionate debates. I really love debates where the debaters actually care about the issues they speak about and not just the ballot.

I will vote on any argument that is clearly articulated, well warranted, and that you are winning. This statement probably brings about a resounding, “well duh” as you read it, but I think there’s a little more nuance to understanding my interpretation. Clearly articulated does not mean that a lot of evidence was read really really fast while you slowed down for the taglines. Well warranted does not mean that you had a lot of cards in the debate and told me to extend a lot of them. I want to know what the warrant of your argument is – I do not want to search through your cards after the round to find it (and in most cases, I won’t).

I like rounds that are fun despite intense competition. Effective use of humor is likely to influence my assignment of speaker points. I believe that debates should be educational but also interesting and inviting. I appreciate casual but respectful conduct between debaters. Antagonism between teams does not get far with me. Don’t arbitrarily punk on other teams in speeches and don’t be a blatant jerk during cx. I won’t be impressed.

I tend to be an expressive judge. I give non-verbal feedback during debates to let you know if I am unclear on what the logic of your argument is. I will smile and laugh when things are funny, I may nod or shake my head if I believe one of your answers if particularly good or bad. Utilize the feedback – I firmly believe that our activity is one geared not only to developing good strategists and logical thinkers but also adaptive speakers who can interact and tailor their delivery to real world audiences. I don’t play the part of an expressionless automaton anymore than the average person who attends a public debate. J.

Preference of Arguments/Style

While I make the claim that I’ll vote on anything, there are some things you should consider about how I will evaluate particular types of arguments:

Speed: You can be fairly quick in front of me, but I will not pretend to have the best technical debate skills – I am fairly quick on the flow but my ability to hear the fastest debates in the community is not the best. However, if you adapt and speak at a fast conversational pace, I will flow nearly every single word you say (including cards and the warrants within them that I love so much) as I type quite quickly and flow on a laptop. In all reality, as quick as I am on a keyboard, you should also remember that my in-round experience as a debater amounts to somewhere between 30 and 40 rounds. If we're talking about the NDT it is likely that you as a debater have more technical debate skill than me. My motto is, "The slower you go, the more on the flow." If you don't slow down, and I ask you to clear, and you fail to and lose the debate, I will not consider this my fault -- I will look at it as a failure to adapt to your audience.

Topicality/Theory: I don’t tend to lean towards theoretical arguments like T – not because I don’t think it’s worth discussing but largely because of the way these debates are presented. If you intend to run topicality or any other procedural argument that deals with abuse, clearly articulate to me where the abuse takes place in the round. I am not likely to vote on potential abuse. Spend the time developing your standards and explaining what the impacts of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution are. Aff teams should know that I am open to kritiks of topicality, but again these should be well developed. The answer to topicality should not amount to the claim that T is genocidal. In general, If you’re arguing theory in front of me and I look confused, it might not be a bad idea to back up and explain what your interpretation of “dispositional” is,

Fiat: I separate this discussion from K's or performance debates for a reason -- because it's coming up more and more each year. I do not believe I am a policy maker, or that "plan passes" in the real world by default. If this is your framework and both teams agree to it, I have no problem with fiat. However, aff teams answering "fiat is illusory" arguments should know they need to do substantially more work than claiming that they "get fiat" because they are aff, or because "fiat is a rule of debate."

Kritiks: In a former debate life I was more of a K hack. Now I expect a better developed criticism. I like K’s that have a workable alternative and that have nice clear links to the affirmative case. If the K functions as a solvency take out, explain the warrants of how solvency is undercut. “The K turns the case completely because they can never solve” is not an articulation of how the mindset/discourse/whatever employed by the Aff team undercuts their ability to solve back the harms. Get specific – engage the case – don’t be generic. For negative teams – I expect the permutation to be as workable as the alternative is. That being said, I tend to shy away from alternatives like “rethink and do plan” where no actual rethinking takes place at any point other than the phrase “rethink and do plan.” If your advocacy is the permutation there should be an explanation of how the permutation works – not just that the card you read says you can perm. Show me how the permutation captures the best solvency for both the harms of case and the K. One final note: I am not well versed in philosophical theory. Don’t fall back to the jargon of your authors in developing and explaining their arguments

CP/Disad: I will be honest and admit openly that I do not like disads very much – largely because they are often generic, lack specific links to case, and fall back on the same magically disastrous impact cards year after year. If you intend to go for the D/A, make sure that you’ve clearly established uniqueness, brink, links, etc – I don’t like to do extra work for you to develop a convoluted link story. On the CP side of the debate there are two caveats you should keep in mind. The first is that I tend to like crafty counterplans that are well developed and soak up benefits or solve in specific ways. If you are running a consult CP, I want to know how consultation works in the context of the affirmative case – not just that consultation is good. PICs are legit in front of me as long as you win any resulting theoretical debate that crops up. Affirmative teams should heed the same advice here on the perm as I suggest above on the K - there should be an explanation of how the permutation works – not just an articulation of “Do Both!”

Performance/Poetry/Hip-Hop/Romper Room etc.: Performance debates are my favorite debates to judge by far and I would go as far as to say I have something of a reputation for voting for positions articulated through performance. This does not mean that I do not drop performance teams. I tend to have high standards for performance teams – the fact that you perform is not enough to win the round. There has to be a substantial argument being made and it must be backed up and refuted consistently within the framework the performance sets up. Don’t ask me to vote because you read a poem at the top of the 1AC and then read cards for the next 8 and a half minutes. Your performance should bring something substantial to the round. Should a framework debate occur, affirmative teams should develop the warrants pertaining to the advantages of their framework. For instance, you are not more inclusive or educational simply because you sing or play music. Explain how your approach captures these sorts of benefits. Negative teams would be best advised to critique the performance/advocacy! While I’m willing to hear topicality arguments and theory arguments I am often most persuaded by negative teams who critique the performance for its effectiveness, ability to attain its goals (solve) etc. Treat the performance like a case debate. You are very unlikely to win my ballot on the negative with the following arguments: “There is no way we can ever predict that a team might play music in a debate round,” “Voting affirmative means that this will happen in every debate round,” “They are bad for ________, (fill in favorite list of abuse standards here), we are being abused! I will quit debate if you vote aff!” Engage the argument and debate it out – don’t run from it.

On the whole, be respectful of one another and have fun! The debate space belongs to debaters, but feel free to use the statements above as a guide in planning your approach for maximum effectiveness. Please feel free to ask me about my feelings on judging anytime you like - I am always more than willing to clarify.