Anthony Davila -- U.S. Military Academy

Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.

Judging philosophy:

I am currently a Varsity debater, and the team captain for Army. This is my fourth year debating. I have taken extensive courses of study in philosophy, international relations, terrorism studies, and biochemistry. I am very comfortable with policy but also usually run Ks myself. I have no problem understanding speed reading as long as you are clear. If you are too unclear for me to understand, I will ask you to be more clear once, after that I will take my hands of my keyboard and stare at you until you become understandable.

If you are running a K on the neg be sure to explain to me exactly what you are trying to critique or advocate. If I don't know what my ballot does under your K, or if I cannot understand how the aff is uniquely harming the world, discourse, my soul, etc. then I will give the aff the benefit of the doubt. Competing interpretations on FW are best, and should be impacted.

If you are running a critical aff, impacts related to your FW need to clearly outweigh traditional policy framework (assuming the neg contends your FW).

I will vote on theory when it is clearly explained and impacted. Shells are good starting points, but be prepared to clearly and completely explain why your theoretical argument means the other team should lose.

My threshold on topicality is somewhat low relative to other judges in the NE region. I believe it is the Neg's burden to prove that the plan isn't topical and it is the (non-topical) Aff's burden to prove that being non-topical is good in this specific case.

I will not make any arguments for either team. Even if something is probably self evident, if you want me to consider it in my decision, you must introduce it in a speech. The only one area I can think of in which I may be unable to restrain my preconceptions. Since I am intimately familiar with the military, if you make a claim that is utterly counterfactual, I may discount it. An example of this might be a claim that the US army has 10 million soldiers on active duty.

If you are rude or offensive to the other team, especially in CX, you will lose speaker points. Wittiness in support of your arguments will get you bonus points.

Beat Navy.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision
NavyNov5FSU/NavyCoulter27Fach25VandyPelaschier29.5van der Walt28NEG
VermontNovOctoCrnlDong0Zuckerman0RochstrBokeria0Monday0NEG 2-1 (NEG)
VermontNovQurtRochstrBokeria0Monday0BingBryant0Dogaroiu0AFF 2-1 (AFF)
MonmouthNov2CUNY /NewarkAcevedo25.5MacCord25.6BosColAllen25.8Brooks26NEG
MonmouthNov6RochstrMonday27.2Yao27CUNY Khan25Medas25.5AFF
MonmouthNovOctoJamesMGlomb0Norby0LibertEdwards0Gardner0NEG 2-1 (NEG)
MonmouthNovSemiJamesMSchrer0Spiker0LibertEdwards0Gardner0AFF 2-1 (AFF)
CornellNov4NavyChapman27.8Zettler27.4CUNY Francis 26.2Segnan26.8AFF
CornellNovOctoMUBell0Cosentino0NavyFischer0Lozano0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
CornellNovQurtRochstrAbrell0Monday0MUMills0Peguero0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
CornellNovSemiNavyFischer0Lozano0RochstrAbrell0Monday0NEG 2-1 (NEG)
WVUNovNatNov7BingDeAngles26.9Giordani26.7WestVaGuirguis27.3Russell 27NEG

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: