Chad Infante -- City Univ. of New York

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:

A limerick to Vik

Our head coach is Vik
Who can sometimes be slick
She is really nice
But don’t say twice
Or else she’ll give you a kick!

Here we go! I debated for the City University of New York for three and half years. I am more interested and knowledgeable about critical literature, but if you decided to run the K I will hold you to a higher standard than those who chose not to. I am not going to lie to you and tell you that I can be objective, for me it does not exist: Judge Intervention in most cases is inevitable. Our personal ideologies and emotions cannot be checked at the door. However, I will try not to let my personal ideas invade the debate space, especially in the case of novices. I have a very low tolerance for theory! The time you waste making shitty one line theory arguments you could have made a substantive compelling analytical argument on the substance of the debate. Even though I love the K, I do love to hear FW/ class of civilization debates and will vote for, “must defend USFG” if the work on the argument is done well. I will not vote on an affirmative straight jacketing of the negative into running a policy option. As the aff you already determine so much of the debate round; I think it’s only fair that the neg get to test the philosophy of your aff. But what I really love is when teams are cordial but confident. Treat your opponents nicely; dickishness or rudness will lower your speaker points.

Novice – I understand how important it is to learn all aspects of debate as a novice and I am willing and pleased to hear any argument a novice wishes to run: T, K, DA, Topical aff, non-topical aff. For novices all that is required to win my ballot is for you to be smart, use your words, ideas and evidence to paint me a story and to explain why you think you won and why the other team lost.

JV – I am less willing to hear a T debate from a JV team and more inclined to want to hear a really good DA, CP, K debate. My expectations are higher so my speaker points will be lower if you mess up.

Open – I wanna hear a really good K, FW, CP/DA Debate—in that order. In open I am looking for clarity, really good argumentation, and for you to be compelling. Even if you don’t know what you’re talking about, pretend like you do. My expectations are even higher so my speaker points will be even lower if you mess up.

T) They can be fun if done properly; heavy theory puts me to sleep. An in depth discussion of the meaning of words and their application in the case of the aff is a batter way to get me to vote on T. Voting issues are only voting issues if they are explained and impacted. Education precedes fairness. Fairness for fairness sake does not make sense if nothing is being learned.

DA) Links must be concrete and clear. Impact calculus, impact calculus, impact calculus!

CP) Must have net benefit—as if you didn’t know that already. C.P. must solve case and be a good reason to vote neg. shallow work done on why the C.P solves makes it harder to hash through whether or not the aff or the C.P. solves better.

K) Does not have to have an alt. In many cases it can function as a DA to case. Link story must be clear. Ambiguous floaty links make for poor K debate—unless you can come up with a sweet link wall from the ambiguous stuff in the 2NC. If you go for the alt please tell me what it does, it would be nice if it solved case, but it does not have to. I am fishy about links of omission unless I am given a compelling story as to why I should care about that particular omission. For affs to beat the K they obviously need to win the perm, but shallow coalition evidence won’t cut it. Look at the K see what is says, exploit it and use your aff to knock down some philosophical underpinning of it and make the case for the permutation.
F.W.) I love them and they must be done well. There is a philosophical reason to being pragmatic and utilitarian and to why the aff must defend the resolution; there is also a philosophical reason that we should not be pragmatic and utilitarian or not defend the resolution. You win one of these arguments you win the F.W. debate. That is all.

AFF) Love un-topical affs that are done well, but affs do not have to be un-topical if I am your judge. If you are going to be un-topical please be ready for the F.W. And I need a story to vote aff.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision
BingHmptNovOctoLibertBridwell0Laremore0CrnlDong0Matos0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
BingHmptJVQurtJamesMBailey0Brunner0LibertScott0Trujillo0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
BingHmptJVSemiNewarkMurphy0kraut0CrnlFurman0Yoon0NEG 2-1 (NEG)
BingHmptJVFinalCrnlFurman0Yoon0NewarkAstacio0Haughton0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
RochesterJVQurtBingChoudhury0Reddick0LibertAlsop0Rossdeutscher0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
NavyNovQurtLibertMurray0Walker0JamesMRuraraju0Schrer0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
MonmouthJV4NSGoossens27.6Lowenthal27.4ArmyHouchin 27.5Myers27.3AFF
MonmouthJVOctoBingFriedman0North0ArmyDavis0Hodgkins0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
MonmouthJVQurtLibertFebrizio0Lotspeich0BosColBartholomae0Folio0AFF 2-1 (NEG)
MonmouthNovSemiArmyBurroughs0Hauptman0LibertMurray0Walker0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
MonmouthOpenFinalBosColCarlman0McCormick0GeoMasLastovica0Nichols0AFF 2-1 (AFF)
RutgersOpen2ArmyCornelius 27.2Davila27.4BingTimmons28Zglobicki27.5NEG

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: