Marshall Amaya

USC ' 23

Please add me to the email chain! maamaya@usc.edu

If you ask me before the round about an email chain, that might be indicative of a problem.

TLDR: This is cliche, but do what you want as long as you do it well.

- I have no concrete preference on which style of argumentation you choose to use-- this is ultimately your performance/scene. However, I'd prefer a better debate on an area I'm less educated on than a lesser debate over fields I'm more familiar with. Details of this are later in the paradigm.

- Tech over truth, logic over tech.

- All argumentation needs warrants in order to be evaluated-- the threshold for this lowers if unanswered, but still avail.

- I value narrative/coherence- solid analytical warrants and explanation of your impact scenario is essential to being convincing. A relatively small disad argued well is more convincing than a poorly explained nuke war scenario.

Here are some more specific points.

Traditional affs:

1. Aside from a two-tournament spree where I read Bifo, I solely went for traditional affs throughout my career. I think theres some unique benefits from traditional policy argumentation-- oftentimes nuanced K debates evolve into the negative having one-side expertise of complex theories that aren't communicated well, which ultimately evades clash.

2. I found case in the 2AC underutilized a lot. This doesn't mean in any degree to focus entirely or disproportionately on case in the 2AC, but a concise and strategic overview/line-by-line can make the block a lot more difficult and be more strategic than it seems. A strategic 2AC can set up the quinessential lying youre about to do in the 2AR

Non-traditional affs:

1. Go for it. I think this style of argumentation can enliven the debate space in a lot of ways if done well.

2. Be cognizant that this is not the realm I am familiar with. I may not be up to date with hyper-specific terminology, acronyms, etc. A few extra seconds to make yourself more comprehensive and understandable may do you well.

3. You should have some tie to the topic. This is obviously a fundamental question and I am open to being swayed either way, but that is my initial perspective.

4. FW

- Aff perspective:

1. A lot of fw argumentations on the negative tend to be repetitive cliches, this should influence you to be crafty with how you go for impact scenarios. The possibilities here are endless, utilize that.

2. This isnt particularly insightful, but offense is key in these types of debates.

- Neg perspective

1. The quality of debate impact tends to be more persuasive than the "this creates solutions to real world problems" arguments. The idea here should be no link the aff's offense, then go for an external impact.

2. Treat the debate as a functional external impact to a no-plan link rather than them just being "unfair."

K:

1. A lot of my perspectives on this aspect of debate were already addressed above.

2. I am probably not your judge if your gameplan is to give a 5-minute overview at the top of the 2NC, do the link and impact debate, then have the 1NR take the perm and framework.

3. Focus on clash typically via the link debate-- I think this is where critical debate gets a little messy, but if done well this can make the K debate lethal.

4. I won't cower in fear of getting 3NR'd because I didn't fully comprehend your verbose theory

5. After typing this I am realizing this boils down to: be good at kritiks if you debate them. This isnt insightful lmao

DA:

1. I like it when theyre intrinsic and hyper-specific

2. Uniqueness typically controls the link debate

3. People tend to undercover case-turns

4. Detailed explanations of link turns case are mf brutal theyre sick, big ups to you if you do this

CP:

1. You should probably have a solvency advocate.

2. You should probably quantify and impact out solvency deficits

3. Well researched CPs and PICs are some of the most interesting and substantive debates out there

4. If you have any specific questions here feel free to ask.

T:

1. A good T debate can be fun and engaging, one of my favorite types to listen to.

2. Im agnostic about CI/reasonability-- I err aff a tad on reasonability if the violation is perspectively unsubstantial.

3. Rather than solely focusing on what certain authors think words mean, focus on how your interpretation produces a better topic base and educational future for the debate world.

4. If you go for we meet, it needs to be 100%. If it's 90%, a better strategy might be evaluating how the uncertainty of if you meet or not makes your interpretation preferable.

Speaks:

I used to be really anal retentive about speaks, but by the end of my career I really couldn't have cared less.

This is the format I hope to follow! (Inflates/deflates to the tournament.)

>29.5: top 5 of the tournament.

29.1-29.5: speaker award, minor criticisms.

28.7-29.1: should realistically clear.

28.2-28.7: average.

<28.2: something happened, or you are in the wrong division.

Again, let me know if you have any questions!

If you show me a fully completed application to USC I'll give you 29+

Hello! I debated in the Washington circuit for four years as 2a. I am experienced with most arguments and critiques in the competitive circuit and have judged multiple rounds on this years topic.

Some of my voting tendencies:

Spreading is fine. I will say clear if I am completely lost. Flashing/emailing doesn't count as prep. Standard prep time given.

I judge according to tabula rasa- the competitors should tell me how to vote. I am swayed more by a policy-oriented framework, but I have voted up several kritiks. I place a large burden on both teams to maintain and extend proper framework in round.

I value stock issues, but my circuit in HS was more progressive so good refutation and clash is more important to me.

I find it difficult to vote on kritiks/args that are run poorly or are underdeveloped, but I attempt to judge objectively.

Any other questions can be clarified before round.

My name is David Shin. I debated in CX for 4 years at Coeur d' Alene High School. This is my first year out judging, but I still have decent experience in policy. Currently, I'm at a student at the University of Washington in Seattle. If you have any questions about your rounds or would like to add me to an email chain.. you can reach me at shinsomang28@gmail.com

FAQ:

- Yes, I allow tag-team cross-x as long as the person who is supposed to be answering/asking the questions is reasonably a part of the questioning.

- I do not have any disposition against any specific authors or arguments.. I'll listen to any arguments you read.

- Speed is fine.. go as fast as you want, with one caveat- PLEASE be CLEAR. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed, but if you can handle maintaining both, go for it!

- Organization is really nice.. If you can let me know when you're swapping flows it would help me flow better! (Which of course, is better for you). If not I'll still be able to keep up and put args where I think they are relevant (which may or may not be in your favor).

- I don't count flashing as prep time unless you take an unreasonable amount of time. If there is an email chain, please add me at: shinsomang28@gmail.com

- I LOVE LINE BY LINE

- Be generally nice to each other.. *this won't influence my decision, this is just one of the considerations I take into speaker points.

- I have a pretty average threshold for topicality, as long as the aff is reasonably topical, I'll probably default on reasonability if you tell me to (unless the neg does a good enough job explaining why it is bad).

- K's are chill, but explain them. I'm not just gonna vote for you because you out-jargon some other team.

- Ultimately, I'll vote on anything as long as you make it apparent to me why it is important in the context of the round. Impact it out.

Specifics:

[T]

- I explained my stance on T in the FAQ above. Essentially, if an Aff is reasonably topical- I'll buy it. But if you present to me a compelling reason as to why I cannot default to reasonability, then I won't.

- If you go for T, I want you to explain to me why you think the aff is being abusive. If you can't tell me, then I might have to weigh your T a little less than I normally would.

- Competing interps is fine, I will look at both if you tell me to. Don't just have reasons to pref based on the author though! I like precision arguments, contextual ev, etc. Tell me why I should care about your interp more.

[CASE]

- Impact this out please. Explain to me why the impacts of the aff outweigh whatever the neg has pit up against you.

[DAs]

- This was my jam. I love them. Explain and impact out your scenarios. Weigh them against the aff. I appreciate specific links, though you can get away with generics if the aff lets you.

[CPs]

- These are nice with the DA. Compare the effects of the CP to the world of the Aff. Permutation debate is very important to me. You cannot expect to get away with a perm do both, without explaining how the perm functions and how it is better than the cp alone. That being said, the negative must also explain why the perm does not function.. otherwise I'll let the aff get away with a sketchy perm.

[Theory]

- These are perfectly okay. If there's a incorrect application of the theory, I'll still look at it.. This means both teams need to respond to the theory arguments or there is a decent chance a team could get away with a squirrel-y theory arg.

- ALSO these become much more persuasive when you SLOW DOWN. I'm not exactly sure how much I can buy abuse when you spit it out at 300wpm.

- Impact out your theory arguments. Tell me why it matters.

[Ks]

- These are cool. I like hearing them. I'm not a philosophy major so don't expect me to know your author. Explain exactly how the kritik functions and what happens as a result of the alt. Framework debates are also pretty important... I appreciate specific alts, but you can get away with the generic one if the aff lets you.

- K's I have run/ have experience with: Capitalism/Neolib, Security, Colonialism, any of the IR K's, D&G, Anti-Blackness, Afropessimism, and Orientalism.

- Take the list with a grain of salt, please explain to me what you think your K means in the specific round of debate. I am not going to make applications of the K to the aff for you. This is not a space for you to out-jargon your opponents and expect to win.

[K Affs & Performance Affs]

- I like hearing these, just as much as I enjoy K's. However, since you are on the aff.. I kinda want to hear SOME sort of an advocacy statement even if it is utter BS.

- If you could, please slow down a bit on the tags.. this would be appreciated.