affirmconscientization@gmail.com / sim guerrero on fb

hi! my name is sim and i would prefer you refer to me as such rather than judge/ma’am/etc. i competed in policy and public forum in high school (c/o 2019) and i am currently competing in college parli for johns hopkins university, where i study biology and africana studies. my views on debate are strongly influenced by joseph barquin and michael koo.

i am the policy debate coach at valley high school. here are my other affiliations --

policy affiliations: valley high school, little rock lp, del norte dl

ld affiliation: richardson jj, yerba buena kn, bronx science jh

i formely coached at colleyville heritage, westview, beacon, and baltimore city college. i instructed at nsd pf 2021 and swsdi pf 2020.

notes to all:

--- tech determines what is true for the round. the caveat to this philosophy is that i will not adjudicate any x-ist arguments, climate denialism, anti-vaccination rhetoric, or positions where the us bombs the global south. such will be given a loss with the lowest possible speaks.

--- most of my experience is in kritikal debate, but i’m competent enough to judge straight policy strategies as well. consider striking me if your strategies are comprised of theory cheap shots or tricks – these are not rounds i’m comfortable adjudicating.

--- i can follow speed, but i sincerely believe that the pace y’all go at is unnecessary and detrimental (most of the time). be purposeful with your speed, don’t card dump at 500wpm just because you can when warrants can be delivered at a slower pace. i will say ‘slow’ or ‘clear’ up to two times – if you fail to adapt, i will simply flow what i catch and if i miss the bulk of your speech… oh well.

--- collapse on the path of least resistance! please warrant and implicate your arguments, as a card means nothing in and of itself w/o your analysis and spin. be comparative! layer, frame, and filter arguments in rebuttals. if you leave me with unresolved issues, you will likely hate the assumptions i make, so fill in the gaps for me.

--- tagline extensions are insufficient. just because an argument is cold conceded doesn’t mean it isn’t on you to properly extend warrants and weigh.

--- i will happily answer questions after the round, but i will not tolerate being yelled at by you or your coaches. do not bother post-rounding me in bad faith.

--- i care about educational and meaningful debates happening. at the end of the day, i just hope to judge rounds where debaters are reading strategies they care about and that make them excited about this activity and to learn. don’t forget to take breaks from your screen and drink water!

policy:

--- kritiks: you can read them on the aff and neg. i’m very familiar with most structural kritiks and i am a particularly good judge for identity debate and performance. kritiks of the postmodernist flavor are not my strength and i find myself clueless about these literature bases, so have robust explanations. regardless of what i like or know well, it is your burden to do the explanations and debating so don’t assume you get my ballot just because you read a k. buzzwords and jargon =/= explanations of analysis – please please please actually explain your position and links. you should have a clear link to the resolution (or debate, but a topic link would serve you well) and examples (both historical and current) in your narrative. your thesis and links should be contextualized to the arguments/scenarios in the round. i’m a sucker for a well organized and labelled link wall.

when i vote against a k, it’s usually because the ontology debate wasn’t implicated, the link debate was too generic or had no indicts of the aff, or the alt wasn’t explained and i don’t know how the k resolves any impacts. i am honestly most impressed by k debaters who can make complex arguments simple and digestible.

--- framework: contrary to popular belief, i am a fan of framework. i prefer education and skills impacts over procedural fairness as a principle, but this isn’t a hard rule. the sabotage disadvantage does very well in front of me and i am going to be compelled to vote for your model of debate if you can explain how it can access the aff. this means i need a tva, even if it solves a fraction of the 1ac – winning framework is an uphill battle without one. framework blocks can be really hard to flow – please organize and label your standards.

--- theory and topicality: not my strong suit whatsoever, these debates are the hardest for me to resolve. i default to competing interpretations and it’s really frustrating to judge these rounds when the interpretation isn’t connected to the standards. i sort of view these shells like a disadvantage with the interpretation being the gateway (link) to standards (internal links) and your voters being the impacts. the definitions debate is unfortunately neglected, but SO important!

--- disadvantages: nothing much to say here. i think most disads have terrible internal links and affs can beat it with smart analytics and rehighlightings. focus on uniqueness and link framing, this matters more to me that the impact debate. utilize strategies like disads turning case and don’t forget to weigh.

--- counterplans: again, nothing much to say. i will vote on a severance or intrinsic perm if conceded. explain the net benefit, weigh it, and explain your cp’s solvency.

--- perms: the perm debate can be really frustrating. repeatedly extending “perm do both” or “perm do the aff through the lens of the alt” is insufficient for my ballot, even if the neg drops it. you need to tell me how the perm functions, what it solves, and why it’s better than the neg’s advocacy.

lincoln-douglas:

--- read the policy section. i am a fine judge for you if you read kritiks or straight policy strategies, i am really bad for niche ld things. i am inexperienced in phil debates and do not recommend these strategies in front of me, same with tricks. i don’t know what a “paradox” or “truth-testing” is.

public forum:

--- this is the event i am the strictest and grumpiest in but that’s because i think pf has a desperate need for new norms and i refuse to be complicit in some of these terrible practices.

--- yes, you can read progressive arguments in front of me, but my standards for good debating have not shifted and you must do it well.

--- nothing is sticky.

--- there seems to be a rise in random new jargon like “IVIs” and “meta weighing” – these words are meaningless to me.

--- your evidence should be cut cards with proper citations. if they are not, your speaks are capped at 27 and i will discount your “evidence” and assume it’s an analytic, at best.

--- if you are not in the novice or jv division, do not paraphrase in front of me.

--- probably only once in my life have i ever voted against disclosure theory. the chances that your round is the second is statistically unlikely. disclose either on the wiki or to your privately to your opponents as soon as that pairing is released. if you show me proof that you have disclosed, your speaks will be bumped by +0.3.

--- if your opponent paraphrases or has incorrectly cited evidence, all you must do is make it a voter in a speech and you get my ballot.

--- send your cases and any evidence you intend to read prior to starting your speeches. yes, this means the ac/nc and rebuttals. if y’all opt out of this, it’s a -1.0 for your speaks. if you decide to opt in for an inefficient form of evidence exchange, both teams will get 5 minutes to do so - total - and if it goes over, it starts coming out of both of yall's prep time.

--- i do not know what scope weighing is. repeatedly telling me “it’s game over” or saying that your card has empirics without further explanation is simply, not debating. too many pf rounds are ships sailing past each other in the night. please identify the points of clash and actually be comparative and engage with each other.