Alessandro,+Dan

toc Conflicts: Lexington, Oakwood

Yale Update: Don't steal prep. -1 speaker points for every 30 seconds of stolen prep time for putting speech docs together, emailing, etc.

Background: I debated in LD at Lexington High School, primarily on the national circuit and qualified to the TOC my Senior Year. I graduated in 2015. You can email me at DanAlessandro23@gmail.com with any questions about my paradigm.

Summary:

 * This is an excerpt from Paul Zhou's wiki that sums up how I feel about judging: **


 * "I think part of what makes debate great is its incredible openness. Given that fact, I am fine with speed, theory, policy-style argumentation, dense framework arguments, kritiks, micropolitical arguments, a prioris/prestandard arguments, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Debate is your game. Play it how you want to." **

I am open to any style of argumentation; //just do what you do best.// Even though I primarily read policy arguments as a debater, I enjoy watching and judging good kritik and framework debates as well as any other style as long as it's done well. I will do my best to evaluate all arguments objectively. I prefer debates with heavy clash and engagement with your opponents' arguments.

Speaking/Presentation:

 * I can flow any speed as long as it is clear. I'll say clear as many times as necessary without docking your speaks. That being said, if I am saying clear repeatedly I will visibly indicate that I am unable to flow your arguments, and I won't vote on an argument that I didn't flow.
 * When you are transitioning between flows or arguments on the flow, state the argument or flow you are going to next and then pause for 1-2 seconds for me to find it so I'm ready to flow your responses- if you do this well it will give you a speaks boost.
 * When making multiple responses to an argument, make sure to label them through numbering or lettering.
 * Go slower on tags, plan texts, counterplan texts, theory interpretartions and K alt texts.
 * Try to give an overview establishing how I evaluate the round during final rebuttals; this will make it much easier for me to vote for you.
 * Don't say "we" or "our argument"- you don't debate with a partner

Policy Arguments:

 * I read these a lot as a debater and will be able to follow any policy-focused debate.
 * Make sure to give good weighing between impacts. When doing weighing, make sure to not only tag why your impact outweighs e.g. it has greater magnitude, but explain why that weighing mechanism means one impact is more important than another.
 * I really like seeing well researched and specific strategies.
 * I prefer watching high-quality impact scenarios rather than a high quantity of impact scenarios. Take time to establish uniqueness, solvency, brink for each impact scenario rather than reading several short and underdeveloped impact scenarios.
 * I view perms as advocacies that can be kicked in the 2AR when the aff reads a plan.

Framework:

 * **//What counts as offense under a framework is determined by the framework warrants and not an ad hoc statement of what impacts link. For example, the aff may not read a Rawlsian framework and then just assert "this means only means-based impacts matter" without justifying through framework arguments why ends-based impacts aren't also relevant.//**
 * I enjoy judging good philosophical framework debates. Don't assume that I'm knowledgable about your framework; all framework arguments need to be clearly explained in the first speech, or I will not vote on them.
 * Contingent standards or triggers are fine as long as they are supported by an argument made in the first constructive that states why defense on part of the framework would trigger a different framework
 * Framework debate is comparative- explain why your framework is good in relation to your opponent's framework

Defaults:
The following are a list of soft theoretical defaults that I have. If any argument is made that opposes any of my default beliefs, I will always prioritize an in-round argument. These defaults merely indicate which way I will side on an issue if it isn't spoken to at all in the round.
 * 1) Theory is a reason to reject the argument.
 * 2) Theory is evaluated through a competing interpretations model where the better interp is the one that has more offense to it in the context of this specific round.
 * 3) No RVIs
 * 4) I presume aff in the absence of offense on either side at the end of the round

Additional preferences:

 * I will vote on any theory argument that is justified and won, so long as it isn't blatantly offensive.
 * I believe that the voter section is usually the least-developed section of a theory argument. If your opponent only spends 10 seconds arguing why fairness is a voter and reason to drop the debater, then exploit that. Debaters rarely justify specifically why a given theory violation is so egregious as to reject the debater, so if you go for theory as a voter, develop "reject the debater" well.
 * I prefer theory debates that center on what interp would be best for this specific round over potential abuse claims or arguments about why a given rule would make another round worse. If you point out why your theory offense is relevant to this round and their's isn't, that will help put you ahead.
 * Sign-post clearly on theory.

Kritiks:

 * I'm fine with any "K" or critical positions.
 * I'll be much more inclined to vote on these positions if the role of the ballot/role of the judge is well-developed. Reading a card that says "x is bad" is not sufficient to prove why my specific obligation as a judge is a reason to stop x, given that there are a million bad things in the world.
 * Be clear about what the alternative does/advocates for
 * I will evaluate arguments for why the K comes before theory or T based on the flow as I would with any other argument.

Tricks:

 * Tricky arguments are fine with me as long as they are clearly explained.
 * If I don't flow the implication of an argument in the first speech, then I will grant your opponent new responses to the implication in the next speech because it is unreasonable to expect them to flow an argument that I couldn't flow.
 * New responses to tricky arguments can be made against the new part of the trick. For example, if the NC concedes the claim and warrant for an argument, but the impact doesn't come until the 1AR, then the 2NR can respond to the impact, but not the claim or warrant.
 * I would prefer to judge positions that rely on clash rather than positions that seek to obfuscate the meaning of your arguments in the hope that your opponent will drop them and/or have their arguments precluded by them. However, I will vote for tricks if they are won on the flow.

Miscellaneous:

 * I'm fine with debaters asking questions to each other during prep time (flex prep).
 * You won't get higher than 20 speaker points if, upon request, you don't make an electronic copy of your case available to your opponent.
 * Compiling your speech into one document is prep time; if your opponent tries to do this without using prep time, then call them out on it.
 * Claims must have warrants for me to vote on them.

Evidence Ethics:

 * Evidence ethics are important.** If debater A proves that debater B miscut or clipped any pieces of evidence, I will immediately drop debater B with 0 speaks and report them to the tab room. You may make an ethics challenge via an in-round theory argument or by stopping the round and staking the debate on the ethics challenge.

Speaker Points:
Guideline: 0-25.9 = bad 26-26.9 below average 27-27.9 = average 28-28.9 = good 29-29.9 = very good/excellent 30 = one of the best performances I've ever judged

Things that will give you higher speaker points:
 * **Answering abusive arguments well without theory**
 * Reading your opponent's evidence and making specific responses that reference their evidence
 * Good use of CX
 * Sitting down early
 * Good overviews in final speeches
 * High amounts of substantive clash
 * Being clear, persuasive and efficient
 * well-executed strategy
 * perceptual dominance
 * interesting and unique arguments
 * Being funny
 * Doing high quality weighing that makes it easy for me to write my ballot

Things that will give you lower speaker points:
 * **Plans bad theory**
 * reading generic arguments that don't interact with your opponent's case
 * Avoiding specific clash
 * Frivolous theory arguments
 * Excessive use of the word "probably"