Pinho,+Chris

Chris Pinho Policy Debate Newark Science 07 Rutgers University Current Student Affiliation: American History

I debated in high school for 4 years for Newark Science in Newark NJ and in college for Rutgers University on the Agriculture and Nuclear Weapons topics. I now help coach at American History High School in Newark NJ. I also do research for the Jersey Urban Debate League.

As for my judging philosophy, I'm pretty open to anything although I was more of a policy maker when I was debating. I enjoy a good counterplan, disad, case debate. That doesn't mean I wont listen to critical arguments it just means that those arguments need to be explained very well in order for me to vote on it.

Topicality: Topicality is a prima facia burden of the Affirmative so they must be topical in order to have a stake in winning the debate. With the emergence of the performance and critical Aff's this statement has come into question so I will vote for an Aff that can defend that topicality and standards such as fairness are arbitrary or 'violent' (as it is often argued). Its debate so if you win your argument then I'll vote on it. In a normal T debate you need to prove an in round instance of debate and do comparative analysis on the standards debate. If you want to argue your interpretation of the Rez is better for debate then defend it and dont just reiterate tag lines. Give me a case list, give me specific examples and explination. And if you're arguing they take away ground you need to justify that ground (why you have a right to that ground and how taking it away makes it uniquely bad for debates).

Disads: If you can prove a risk of a link I'm not automatically going to vote on it. Impact comparison comes into play so if you're not doing comparative analysis on the impact level you'll be behind in the debate. Don't forget that there was an 8 minute 1AC with impacts in it. Talk about Magnitude, Timeframe and Probability and make sure you compare your impacts to theirs don't simply say your impact is big and will happen very soon. Also, I know there's a popular paradigm of offense/defense debate but if a team can prove the disad is non-unique I will pull the trigger on that because although its a defensive argument it means that your impacts should have already happened.

Counterplans: Competition. Competition. Competition. Before you write/read a counterplan ask yourself, How does this compete? If you can't answer that question don't run it in front of me because I will vote on a Permutation in a heartbeat if you're counterplan is noncompetitive. I like counterplans and am a huge fan of PICs, I ran many word PICs and so if you can run it well I'll enjoy the debate.

K's: If you're the kind of team that enjoys running K's with nebulous Alternatives, I'm not the judge to do this in front of. I need a clear story as to how the alternative will solve the K impacts. Reject Alts are fine but you need to expect the Aff to argue case will be a disad to the Alt and answer it effectively.

Theory: Blippy, tag line theory debates will not get you the W. Just like T I ask that you slow down a bit as it is hard to flow analytical theory arguments at hyper speed. And do comparative analysis as it is typically about competing frameworks of what is and what is not allowed to be done by either side. If there's no comparisons made you'll probably lose the theory debate. But I have voted on theory arguments in the past and Im sure I will in the future, it just takes the extra step of having a clear explanation of an abuse story or bad precedent setting.

Case: You need a good case debate!! It helps you out so much! For example if you're running a disad and you wanna weight your impacts in relation to theirs, it helps you to have some case defense to mitigate the impacts and you can argue theres a risk theirs might not happen. Also, straight turning case makes it difficult for Aff teams to shadow cover the arguments and move onto the arguments that are more likely going to be in the 2NR. I tell my teams that its easy to just impact turn the advantages. If you hear Disease run a Disease Reps link on the adv, or if you hear a Russia miscalc impact run Nuclear orientalism link on the adv. It never hurts to read a couple solvency take outs as well.

Cross-X: Be aggressive, don't be disrespectful! Cross-x should be used strategically to set up your arguments you'll make in your speech. I also believe it can be used to get perceptually ahead in the debate. If you can convince the judge in Cross-x that the other team doesn't understand their own argument or you can show inconsistencies in their argumentation it definitely helps you out in the long run because it forces the judge to start raising questions. But also if you perceptually look stronger and have a better grasp on your arguments than your opponents it'll probably get you further when it comes time for the judge to weigh arguments on the flow than if you look unsure and sloppy in c-x.

Any other questions you can ask in round I'll be happy to answer them!