Spinelli,+Dan


 * __ ABOUT ME: __** I debated in LD for four years at La Salle College High School in Pennsylvania, graduating in 2014. I competed on both the national and regional/local circuits, and am fine with either style. I am now a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania and hope to major in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. I also coach at La Salle.


 * __ SHORT VERSION __** : I am fine with speed, policy arguments, and kritiks. I will vote for whatever debater is winning the more important arguments on the flow (of course—its your job to tell me what the “more important” argument is), though I REALLY hate voting for certain arguments (like AFC—which I’ll get to later on). If you plan on running theory, skip down to my section on theory so you understand my views on that (they’re definitely not the circuit norm). Essentially, I hate when judges expect every debater to conform to their own predetermined views of debate. Yes, I have my opinions about what I want LD debate to be but I am neither pretentious nor idealistic enough to believe you share my views. So, I will adjudicate the round in front of me in the style presented by the debaters.


 * __ LONG VERSION __** :


 * **__ General Views on Debate __** : I do not care whether you sit/stand or read off of a computer/paper. I am cool with questions during prep time though if one debater isn’t cool with it, you shouldn’t do it. Do what makes you most comfortable in round.
 * **__ Speed __** : My preference as a debater was always to debate quickly but not spread. As a judge, I’m not here to rock the boat—so spreading is fine. My only request is that you be clear and go a shade slower than your fastest speed. As always, PLEASE slow down for analytics, tags, and author names. It would be great if you built your speed up over 10-20 seconds and did not begin at top speed. Also, for most framework cards (especially the dense philosophical stuff often seen on the circuit), it would be nice if you slowed down as well. I will yell “clear” up to two times (after that, you lose half a speaker point for every time I would have said it).
 * **__ Framework __** : I am most used to the traditional value/value criterion setup. However, you are certainly not limited to that. At the end of the day, I want some standard through which to cohesively link your arguments (if it’s a value criterion—great), but it could also be a burden or some other weighing mechanism. I really do not want to see a debate over whether “justice” or “morality” is a better value—it really doesn’t matter. My only other point of interest regarding frameworks is that I hate value criterions that arbitrarily exclude certain impacts. For example [and I’m just going to pillage this example right from Will Marble’s paradigm],"preventing terrorism" is NOT a good standard if the justification is that terrorism kills a lot of people because that implicitly presumes a utilitarian moral calculus. If you do this, I will be VERY sympathetic to your opponent arguing A) that any type of ends-based impact should be allowed under your standard and/or B) that their warrants for deontology (or whatever other moral theory) automatically subsume yours because yours doesn't justify the theory under which your framework operates.
 * **__ Kritiks __** : I really like kritiks and think they are a fascinating part of LD argumentation. I am not up to date with most critical philosophy though, so if a kritik is really going to count on my ballot it has to be read at a reasonable speed and clearly explained. I feel very uncomfortable voting on out-of-round impacts, so I would ask that you do not run those arguments in front of me. For example, you may be “disadvantaged as a debater” in some way, but I think that is a problem better dealt with by coaches, league officials, and school administrators than a happy-go-lucky freshman judging a debate round. Regarding arguments that say “oppression impacts come first,” I find this statement problematic because our opposition to “oppression” is based in some ethical principle that tells us that oppression is bad. Also, please—for the sake of all of our collective intelligence, do not tell me that my ballot will translate into some “call to arms” in Mexico or something.
 * **__ Policy Arguments __** : I like policy-style arguments and would be happy to see them incorporated into an LD round. However, a couple caveats: policy arguments have to link to someone’s framework. If you and your opponent are both running means-based framework, and someone runs a clearly ends-based disad—I don’t understand how to adjudicate that. Also, I am more inclined to believe that high probability-low magnitude impacts matter more than low-probability-high magnitude impacts. I think that the uniqueness, link, and internal link all need to be very solid before I care about what your impact is. And, I am inclined to think any impact leading to extinction is criminally stupid. Finally, though plans, disads, and counterplans are all fine, I think that topical counterplans don’t make sense in LD. Your job as the negative, at least in my opinion, is to prove the resolution untrue, rather than flatly negate the affirmative’s case.
 * **__ Theory __** : I prefer to not see “frivolous theory” run in round. If you bait your opponent in cross-x to let you whip out a theory shell, I’m not going to be happy. I definitely want to see substantive debate, though I completely understand that theory debates have become a large part of LD. I default to reasonability. I want to actually believe that abuse has occurred in round rather than let your elaborately prewritten shell persuade me. That being said, I will listen and vote on what is on my flow. However, I am open to arguments on theory that point out the lack of any meaningful abuse. So, again, I will be as fair as possible in whatever round I am in, but it would be in your best interests to stick to substance as much as possible in front of me.
 * **__ Extensions __** : I want to hear the claim, warrant, and impact. I give the 1AR a lower threshold for extensions. If the argument was dropped in the 1NR, all I need is the claim and impact. I will not vote on any argument not extended in the final rebuttal.
 * **__ Weighing __** : This is the single thing that will make my ballot easier to write. Don’t be afraid to point out spots on the flow where your opponent may be ahead. Just let me know why the parts of the flow where YOU are ahead matter the most. Weighing becomes especially relevant in a util debate or when I have two directly conflicting cards. Please make my job easier and WEIGH!
 * **__ Speaker Points __** : I have not judged yet so my assignment of speaker points may vary from this paradigm. I will try to adjust my speaker points to the quality and style of the tournament. For example, at tournaments like CFLs and PA States, where speaker points are generally lower, I won’t hand out 29s and 30s to skew the pool. But, at a tournament with a massive 4-2 screw like Harvard, I will reward performances that I think deserve to break with significantly higher speaker points. On the average, I will start at a 28 and go up and down from there. I assume that I would give higher speaker points than most other judges. I am not out here trying to crush dreams.
 * **__ Things I Absolutely Hate: __**
 * o Micropolitics—makes me uncomfortable and a competitive debate round is probably not the venue for these types of arguments anyway.
 * o Anything you learn in your “bag of tricks” lecture at camp
 * o AFC—not only an unfair argument but intellectually bankrupt.
 * o Skep triggers—especially when used against unsuspecting, younger debaters.
 * o A prioris
 * At the end of the day, I want to be the best possible judge I can be for the two debaters in front of me. All my views presented here are to assist you in your preparation and strategy for the round. Best of luck and I look forward to judging you!