Diluca,John

BROTHER RICE HIGH SCHOOL** 1. I am a technical judge. You’re in bad shape if you drop an important argument. 2. I prefer a fast debate. I try to flow the warrants of evidence. If you are unclear when reading your evidence, it will reflect in your speaker points. 3. The affirmative should propose **__a__** topical plan. 4. Deep down, I don’t think your K will do anything in the “real world.” You can run a K in front of me. (My lifetime statistics say I am more likely than not going to vote for the K.) However, it is perhaps my least favorite argument in the activity. 5. Unless stated otherwise, all negative arguments are conditional. And if the SQ is a better policy option than both the plan and the CP, I vote negative (unless the CP is unconditional). 6. Make a claim and provide warrants. Evidence provides warrants, and it is your job to make comparisons between your evidence and your opponent’s evidence. “If…then” statements are great words to use in rebuttals. 7. I do not look favorably upon new arguments in the 2AR (or any rebuttal). 8. In the words of a scholarly colleague, “ I will often take a long time to reach a decision in a close debate, I will read a lot of cards, and think about things very hard. The reason for this is best expressed by paraphrasing Scott Harris. ‘If you work hard on preparing your arguments, I will work hard on judging them.’” If you are a K oriented team, I am not your best judge. As an argument, I think it is terribly unpersuasive. Ironically, I voted on the argument more than 50% of the time last year. I voted for the argument almost regularly, not because I found the argument compelling, but because the opposing team botched the permutation or conceded a link.
 * JOHN DILUCA
 * __The essentials__**
 * __Critical Arguments__**

In terms of specifics, this is what you will need to do, at a minimum: § Explain why the K turns the case and/or solves the case better than the affirmative-specific solvency. In my opinion, it is exceptionally difficult to prove that the K alternative does anything in the “real world” or solves anything in a post-fiat world. § I do not assume that the K is an A-priori issue. The label “kritik” does not automatically translate into a stand-alone voting issue. Finally, I am a pragmatist at heart, which will be helpful when arguing a permutation.

**__ Theory Arguments __** Generally, this argument is more persuasive if there is in-round abuse. This does not mean that I particularly like judging theory debates. In fact, very few, if any, judges in the country enjoy judging theory debates. Although I consider myself a technical judge, with age I have noticed that I view theory debates more abstractly. Finally, in my opinion, rejecting the team and not the argument seems like a suitable punishment for theory violations.

The more specific you can get when debating topicality the better, especially given my limited exposure on this year’s topic. A good case list goes a long way for both teams. I tend to believe that T is about competing interpretation, although I am open to a more “reasonable” interpretation. The standards debate should be measured by predictable limits, although I can be persuaded otherwise. With regard to Extra-T, whether I reject either the team or part of the plan that is extra-topical should be an issue in the debate.

Unless the other country (entity) says no, a consultation or condition CP cannot both solve the case AND compete.