DiPiazza,+Philip

Updated - Fall 2017 High School Experience: 4 yrs CX College Experience: 4 yrs CX Number of years as coach/judge: 9

Like every judge I look for smart, well-reasoned arguments. I believe that form and content are mutually constitutive elements of debate and I enjoy watching teams that are capable of merging the two. I’ll admit a certain proclivity for critical argumentation, but it certainly isn’t an exclusive preference (I think there’s something valuable to be said about “policy as performance”). Most of what I have to say can be applied to whatever approach debaters choose to take in the round. Do what you’re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thought-out decision.

I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. However, good spin and good evidence are not mutually exclusive. I probably won’t read every card in every round, but I’ve definitely made some decisions based on whose evidence was better on important questions. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I like strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it’s the Negative’s job to prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary which means more than just presenting an alternative or methodology that solves better. Please be sure to explain your position and its relation to the other arguments in the round. I enjoy hearing new things and will try to be open to a wide variety of styles, approaches, and ideas.

I tend to err Aff questions of topicality and Neg on most other theory debates. I think the topic is important, and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution. That doesn't mean that you have to read a plan text or defend the USFG. Framework is always debatable, but I prefer substantive arguments that respond to the level of criticism underwriting the 1AC. This means I would be more persuaded if you can demonstrate why the focus on an external government actor is preferable to an approach that emphasizes personal agency or identity as the subject for debate.

Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) I think there is a difference between intensity and being disrespectful. Please be mindful of this.

DiPi