Iuliano,+Ben

Bishop Guertin High School class of 2014 Second Year Student at the University of Michigan

Despite its impossibility, neutrality is what I strive for when judging debates; I try my best not to prejudice arguments or competitors before a debate round, but my personal experiences inevitably influence how I think (as is the case with any and every judge). That being said, my argument proclivities in high school should not influence what you decide to read in front of me—j ust because I didn't read a plan text on the aff and went for critiques on the neg for >90% of my senior year doesn't automatically meant that's what you should do. For the first few years of my career I read politics disads, process counterplans, and hegemony advantages just as frequently as I read a security critique or a plan PIC, and I still feel comfortable with my ability to evaluate any of these. I will do my best to evaluate all arguments impartially and intelligently. At the same time, I don't want to be a robot. Pathos and ethos have vital roles in argumentation, and you should use them to your advantage.


 * Bottom line – You do you, I'll try to keep up.**

Stray musings:
 * Disclaimer: I've only judged two debates at a DUDL tournament on the surveillance topic; do with this information what you will.
 * This should go without saying, but argument=claim+warrant+impact
 * I think the tech vs. truth distinction is somewhat nebulous and contingent upon the arguments being made; like anything else it's debatable, so I'm hesitant to align myself with either side of this "ideological divide."
 * Framework is generally neither a compelling nor strategic argument, but it can be executed effectively. I just tend to think it's an unnecessarily arduous uphill battle.
 * 100% defense is achievable; defensive claims in general should be used more strategically and more often
 * When it comes to speaking, I appreciate nuance and comprehensibility over speed, though they aren't mutually exclusive.

For a more detailed explanation of how I likely think about debate and specific arguments, have a look at Greg Zoda's eloquent philosophy.

//If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask before the round commences.//