Arturo Féliz-Camilo

I studied and practice law, hold two law degrees and teach History. I'm familiar and like the economic/social/historical arguments. I've been coaching (mostly PF) since 2013 for New Horizons Bilingual School in the Dominican Republic.

I love debate, and the strategy game. I love to see a good clash of ideas and interesting/novel analysis. I'll buy any argument as long as you link, warrant, and support it with relevant evidence. Still, I think some arguments are just in bad taste. Allow me to further clarify this point. I am not going to buy any argument just because "there's a card". That's not enough for me. You have to persuade me, you have to warrant your claims.

I believe communication is key. If I can't understand it due to speed, I won't flow it. I won't ask you to slow down. I almost never intervene. Debate should not be about brute force your opponents into submission, but about a clash of ideas.

I really enjoy a civil CX. Ask for evidence if you must, but don't make the round an evidence match. If you call for evidence I hope you're planning to do something with it. I listen to CX but won't flow it. I'll note cool stuff in the hopes it makes it into your speech. I almost never review evidence, unless there's a claim by one of the teams, and then I must. I'll go with what's in my flow. I do admit that having the cases help me flow, but I mostly flow what you read.

It's ok to offer an off-time roadmap, just don't take a minute doing so. Quickly give it and move on. Don't ask. Just do it.

Once more. Explain, analyze, and warrant your case, don’t just read it. Weigh, impact, link, extend, boil down, crystallize. Feel free to sign-post/roadmap. Absent a framework and weighing I'll go with what stands in the end. Don't bring new arguments to summary. I won't flow them. Don't bring new arguments to final focus. I won't flow it.

I'm not in love with Ks or Theory. Run them at your own risk. I like to think that we should debate under the agreed upon rules. I will buy arguments on technical aspects of PF, as a matter of order and fairness. I think too many debaters are running disclosure in a dishonest way. All that said, I will buy anything that makes sense, including abusive behavior, bad faith misgendering, and anti-violence. I am not absolutely closed to theory, but I'll usually only buy it if it's run in good faith, and not as a strategy to win a round.

Pettiness will not win me over, but you gotta stand your ground. Sassiness is awesome, but the line between the two is just so thin. You want to win your round? Be smart, creative, fun, thoughtful, and strategic. Outweigh, outsmart, outperform, outclass your opponent.

If at the end of the round you want me to explain how I gave or not gave you the ballot, I will absolutely do it in good faith, but I will not debate you, or change my mind. Once I start disclosing, the ballot is already in, so trying to persuade me at that point is not productive.

Add me to your evidence chain arturo@arturofeliz.com

For my debate it is fun and that the students have fun is the most important thing, so I think there are several ways to make the debate fun as a judge I don't like when students only read the evidence without giving me an explanation I want them to give me real-life examples and opinions I don't care how strong your evidence is, you have to explain. you have to show a level of knowledge. You should make me think you can win.

The team that wins the rounds of questions also has a better chance of winning