My Paradigm:

I am a high school counselor/teacher at Santa Fe High School in Alachua, FL. I have experience in judging some of the Debate styles, but by and large my preference is the Speech events. I earned a letter in Theater during high school which gives me an appreciation for the speech events. I also am interested in social justice concerns as well as current events, which is why I enjoy coming to these tournaments.

Things you should know about me:

1. I like for you to lay out your speech or debates in advance. I do not want to get to the end of your event and not be clear on what it was you were trying to convey. If you have three points tell me what they are and then proceed to flesh them out. If you are countering an opponent's points tell me which ones. My mind likely does not make the same assumptions that yours does so it will be helpful for you to state your logic.

2. I do not like spreading. Please don't do it. My mind is older than yours and I need more think time.

3. I like fair and respectful debate. Please don't be hostile to one another, it is unpleasant for all of us to be exposed to that.

4. I am a newer judge, please keep it topical. If you run a K I will be confused by it.

5. Lastly I love all things Disney so my heart will be warmed by any mention of anything related to the Disney Empire.

Please add me to the email chain dciocca@columbushs.com

I am a debate coach with experience judging at national tournaments at the novice and varsity levels. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can understand a considerably faster than conversational pace) and supported by convincing evidence. Please slow down on the tags so I can accurately flow. I don't mind listening to a unique or interesting argument but somehow you MUST link it back to the resolution if you are going to get my ballot.

Plans: All good, just make it relatable to the topic

Counter-plans: All good.

Theory: If there is significant violation or abuse in a round that warrants running theory, I will vote on it but generally not a fan of debating about debate.

Ks: Willing to listen to a good K as long there is a really strong and convincing link back. Not a fan of generic links or links of omission as an excuse to run the K you want to run.

DA: I'm fine with them, we are all good here

T: I think aff has an obligation to be somewhat topical and neg has the right to question whether aff is in fact being topical. That being said, while I generally will not vote on a straight RVI, running T for the sole purpose of creating a time suck for aff and then kicking it in the NR is not a strat that is going to sit well with me.

Conditional Arguments: Anything more than 2 conditional arguments is abusive and puts aff in an impossible situation in the 1AR. I will vote off “Condo bad” in these situations.

Disclosure: Seems like it gets run a lot for no purpose other than trying to get a cheap win. However, If the affirmative is reading a case that is so unique, such as a specific plan text, that the negative would have difficulty engaging with then disclosure is the fair thing to do.

Feel free to ask me if clarification is needed