Cresto,+Anthony

Judging Philosophy: Anthony Cresto

4 Years in Parliamentary Debate at Palomar College (CA) and the University of Utah 2 Years in Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Palomar College
 * History**

Bias: I am not a tabula rasa judge and anyone that claims such is being dishonest. I am a liberal borderline anarcho-socialist (aka, old school libertarian), if you are smart enough to characterize your arguments from that perspective you will have a pretty good edge. That said, I've voted for a case that Ayn Rand could have written so I am open to arguments I fundamentally disagree with.
 * Paradigm**

Judging Style: I am a flow based judge (with some bias towards persuasive speaking styles) that can keep up with anything but +400wpm. I must consider dropped arguments as flowed through the rest of the round (this applies in general to cross application of the first constructive in the rebuttals) but I do not allow additional offense off of a dropped argument unless it is in response to an opponent. I prefer if you number and have a substructure for all of your arguments. If you are talking for more than two minutes without a single subpoint in an argument, you're debating wrong. I prefer a solid and consistent articulation and understanding of philosophical concepts/theories. If you are contradictory and your opponents point it out, I'm likely to drop you. If you misrepresent a philosophy I am likely to drop you. If you make fallacious claims I am likely to drop you. In other words, research your subject.

Criterions: I evaluate rounds based on the criterion & interpretations given but I dislike utilitarian and objective criterions. That said, I will use them if they are either a) properly defined and have a valid internal logic or b) if the opponent drops the criterion and/or does not put effective offense on it. In a round where the criterions & interpretations are muddled, I will evaluate the debate through both sets of criterions & interpretations simultaneously.

Ks: Kritiques are always valid arguments in my mind. However, you must include a critical framework, a thesis, harms, links, impacts, a stable alternative & solvency. I get mad at dirty kritiques but will give feedback on how to improve them.

Theory: I will vote on procedural positions when there is articulated abuse. That said, procedurals can be useful strategies if you need to buy time... IF you can get away with it without being called on. On other theory positions, there must be unique reasons to vote on your interpretation.

LD: I will allow plan affirmatives but require a stable theoretical basis so that your opponent can have access to a substantial debate. Note: Saying that the rules prohibit plan debate is a negligible argument for me. Cards are needed for interpretations of constitutional law and specific events, not for what is IN the constitution.
 * Comments on Events**

Policy: Speed is a problem in this event. By and large, most people are making fast arguments without thinking about what they mean in the wider context of the round. Take that for what you will, dropped arguments are still flowed through.

PF: Give me something substantial to consider, not generalities.