Di+Lorenzo,+AJ

AJ Di Lorenzo
(copied-and-pasted from NDCA)

Background:

I have been the primary assistant coach at Homewood Flossmoor for the past four years. I debated at Glenbrook South for four years and at DePaul University for three.

I'm currently working on a PhD in American history.

Judging Philosophy:

I recognize that true objectivity is impossible but strive to remain as objective as possible. While I have many personal argument preferences, I don't feel the need to artificially guide the debate and potentially limit the scope of discussion by disclosing them.

Fundamentals are important to me as a judge. Warranting your claims is imperative. I don't consider extending a tag or an unwarranted claim to be an argument and won't treat it as such. I consider everything open to debate.

I especially enjoy good case debates and arguments that truly address the issues at the crux of the resolution, as opposed to debates that stray to the point where they could be had on most any resolution.

Pet Peeves:

Treating the cross-examination as if it was either a pointless waste of three minutes or an opportunity to endlessly berate and intimidate the other debater

Assuming that critiques are impervious to reason

Running multiple T violations that no one can understand merely as a time suck

Methodically reading theory blocks with no independent thought

Intangibles:

A good sense of humor is always welcomed.

Remember that this is a communicative activity. I have no problem with speed, but it is not an excuse to spit all over the place and wheeze. Sometimes argument selection is more important than getting everything possible into the round at the expense of clarity.