Marty Pimentel Paradigm

Last changed 1/12 6:14P EDT

Marty Pimentel

OPRF 2012-2016

Emory 2016-2020

General stuff:

-I default to a view of debate as a game. That being said, no one spends their summers at monopoly camp. Debate being a game doesn't make it less of anything else

-Tech vs. Truth: I probably default to tech over truth, but just as all the truth in the world won't save you without good tech, all the tech in the world won't save an argument that is obviously false.

-Analytics: I'm a big fan. There are obviously arguments that you need an authoritative source for, but you shouldn't be afraid to point out when something logically or factually doesn't make sense

-Terminal defense and Presumption: I have a lower threshold than most for voting on terminal defense/presumption arguments, but if that's your strategy then you better be prepared to go all in on it. Otherwise it's still a very difficult argument for me to pull the trigger on.

-I don't flow CX but I listen very carefully and remember what was and wasn't said. I think a good CX is one of the most powerful tools a debater has.

-Debate is serious and you should care about it, but it's also fun and you should have fun

Case:

-Awesome: I love a good case debate. There are very few situations in debate in which the neg can't benefit from a serious effort on case

-Evidence comparison is key: reading cards back and forth at each other isn't a debate. Even analyzing your own evidence doesn't matter unless you use that analysis and compare it to the other team's evidence. This goes for any part of the debate

-Try or die: I think that 99% of the time the aff is going to win that there is some sort of impact which I should probably stop. But if the neg is saying that the advantage or internal link is non-unique then it's not actually try or die anymore.

DA's:

-Politics DA vs. Specific DA's: Some people love the politics disad and others hate it. I'm somewhere in the middle. I think it's an argument with obvious strategic utility, but I tend to think in most cases that it's not as compelling as a good case specific disad.

-Impact calc: If you're going for the disad then you need to be winning the impact calc. I think that turns the case arguments are really compelling defense. I'm also persuaded by the argument that you don't need to win the terminal impact in order to turn the case (e.g. you don't need to win economic collapse; even an economic slowdown could turn the case)

CP's:

-I'll just start by saying that I won't vote against a CP just because I think it is cheating; you need to win that argument.

-I think that States and International Fiat CP's are open for a theory debate. I think that Process CP's are cheating.

-Advantage Counterplans: I think that they are very under utilized and I don't know why. If an aff has three advantages, two of them are usually shit. If you know that the aff has an advantage that is much better than the others, an advantage CP is a great way to neutralize it.

K's:

-I was a "K guy" in high school: that means I'm familiar with most of the usual lit out there. It also means I can tell when you're trying spin nothing into something. I know all the tricks, so use them at your peril.

-Long words do not make an argument good: I personally believe that if you can't explain an argument to a little kid in a way they would understand, you probably don't understand the argument yourself. And if you don't understand your own argument I am much more likely to be persuaded by an aff team that understands their arguments. So skip the intentionally confusing verbiage and get to the substance of your argument.

-The same goes for long taglines: For real, why? Why would you have a tagline thats as long as the card you're about to read? Just don't read the card at that point...

-Framework: Both sides need to have a clear framework for what debate should look like and what our engagement with the world should look like. The team that does a better and more consistent job is going to be ahead. I don't buy frameworks that exclude K's from debate entirely.

Framework:

-Coming from a guy who read K affs in high school: Framework is a legitimate and persuasive argument against your aff. Treat it as such. I personally love a good framework debate

-You still have to engage the aff: Framework by itself isn't good enough. You should still be addressing the substantive parts of their aff and challenging their view of the world. It makes framework that much more convincing.

-Watch out for contradictions between framework and other off case arguments

-New K affs that don't disclose and say that debate isn't a game should lose to framework. If debate isn't a game then why would you not disclose?

Topicality:

-I default to reasonability. I analyze this part of the debate the same way I do with tech vs. truth. If the aff is truthfully topical then you're going to have to work much harder with your techy T argument.

-Limits are an internal link to ground, fairness, and education

Theory:

-I am much more willing to pull the trigger on theory than a lot of people

-Conditionality: I think that the neg is probably justified in a conditional CP and a conditional K. Anything more is very susceptible to theory

-If you think a CP is cheating, it probably is

-If it's a new aff and they didn't disclose, the neg gets way more leeway

Email: martynpimentel@gmail.com

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Sequoyah Autumn Argument 11/9/2019 VCX Quarte Woodward RL Chattahoochee AA Aff Aff on a 3-0
Sequoyah Autumn Argument 11/9/2019 JCX R4 Druid Hills WS Woodward GD Neg
Sequoyah Autumn Argument 11/9/2019 VCX R2 Northview KA Chattahoochee AA Neg
Sequoyah Autumn Argument 11/9/2019 NCX R1 Woodward CS Druid Hills GH Aff
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/27/2019 NCX Quarte Decatur KV Woodward BM Neg Neg on a 3-0
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/27/2019 VCX R6 USN BH Hume-Fogg Academic Magnet KQ Aff
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/27/2019 VCX R5 USN KH Henry W Grady KR Aff
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/27/2019 JVCX R4 Westminster HC Berkeley Prep SS Neg
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/27/2019 VCX R3 USN KF Riverwood CL Aff
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/27/2019 JVCX R2 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart FM Berkeley Prep LS Neg
Chattahoochee Cougar Classic 9/27/2019 VCX R1 Northview YA USN CW Aff
IHSA State Debate Championship 3/14/2019 Policy 5 Niles West Firozabadi & Bender Thomas Kelly Lopez & Cai Aff Aff on a 2-0
IHSA State Debate Championship 3/14/2019 Policy 4 Walter Payton Lawless & Aneesh Whitney Young Wang & Schlosberg Aff Aff on a 2-0
IHSA State Debate Championship 3/14/2019 Policy 3 Solorio Uribe & Melero Whitney Young O'Malley & Margolin Neg Neg on a 2-0
IHSA State Debate Championship 3/14/2019 Policy 2 Glenbrook North Jacobs & Karteczka Solorio Castro & Candelario Neg
IHSA State Debate Championship 3/14/2019 Policy 1 Glenbrook South Bhaiji & Roberts Niles North Bojinov & Khan Aff Aff on a 2-0
GFCA Varsity State Championships 2/22/2019 CX Semis Chattahoochee Jared Adam & Rohan Manne Woodward Mona Mahadevan & Malachi Robinson Neg Neg on a 3-0
GFCA Varsity State Championships 2/22/2019 CX R3 Chattahoochee Josh Jeong & Rithvik Nagabhirava Woodward Nishita Ghanate & Sachi Reddy Aff
GFCA Varsity State Championships 2/22/2019 CX R1 Chattahoochee Jared Adam & Rohan Manne Woodward Callum Guo & Samuel Wombough Aff
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/19/2019 VPF Quarte McIntosh AC Peachtree Ridge SY Neg Neg on a 2-1
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/19/2019 VCX R4 Henry W Grady TK Woodward KG Aff
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/19/2019 VCX R2 Chattahoochee JN Woodward AG Aff
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/19/2019 VCX R1 Cambridge HS MR Northview DK Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 VCX Octofi Paideia HT Westminster PI Neg Neg on a 2-1
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R6 Montgomery Bell ZA Henry W Grady RW Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R4 USN KW Montgomery Bell MB Neg
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R3 Montgomery Bell GL Woodward TP Neg
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 VCX R1 Isidore Newman FK Westminster PI Aff
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/20/2018 VCX R4 Chattahoochee JN Westminster BR Neg
Alpharetta Treasure Hunt 1/20/2018 VCX R3 Chattahoochee AP Westminster KP Aff
Sequoyah Autumn Argument 11/4/2017 JCX R4 Wheeler RL Mount Vernon Presbyterian DS Aff
Sequoyah Autumn Argument 11/4/2017 VCX R3 Marist TZ Chattahoochee AA Neg
Sequoyah Autumn Argument 11/4/2017 NCX R2 Woodward TS Cambridge ST Neg
Sequoyah Autumn Argument 11/4/2017 VCX R1 Cambridge YS Henry W. Grady WN Neg
Westminster 11/19/2016 OPEN R5 USN DF Ogden International School of Chicago PM Aff
Westminster 11/19/2016 OPEN R4 Marist EZ Northview KJ Neg
Westminster 11/19/2016 NOV R2 Woodward GK Chattahoochee HP Neg
Westminster 11/19/2016 NOV R1 Hume-Fogg Academic Magnet GC Woodward KS Neg