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

I am a former debater for the New Horizons Debate Team in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. I have experience in both national and international tournaments. I prefer for each team to have their own framework and for them to really clash on it so ultimately the debaters themselves choose what framework is the one I should vote on (I consider a framework to be a really important thing in the debate, FYI). Please weigh the round as having me weigh it for you may not go in your favour. I am a judge who while flows all of the debate also takes into consideration performance and how the debaters managed themselves in the round when casting a ballot. Proper etiquette is a must. Ultimately, remember to have fun!

SPEECHES:

For the speeches, I personally don't mind debaters talking fast, but only if they are understandable. If you can't handle the speed then slow down cause it is of utmost importance for me, as a judge, to be able to understand the strong points that you have so enthusiastically prepared.

CROSSFIRES:

I don't mind you standing your ground in crossfires, but you need to be able to maintain professionalism throughout the cross. If you want me to consider a point introduced or discussed in the cross you must extend it in your speech. I prefer for debaters to stand during crossfires, including grand crossfires(Doesn't apply to covid era debates for obvious reasons). I really don't mind heated crossfires as long as I can understand what is happening. In the grand crossfire, it is recommended for both speakers to speak.

FINAL SPEECHES:

I prefer and encourage teams to start outweighing the round since the end of the summary. In the last speeches, while it is good to mention and state how your opponents have lost, it is always better to focus more on how YOU have won the debate.

PREP TIME/SPEECH TIME:

Just for you to know, I am keeping track of your timers and if you exceed them by a considerable amount speaker points will be deducted from you. It is okay to finish a sentence if you already started it, but not okay for you to randomly extend your speech by 30 seconds. For prep time I am a bit more strict, you won't get even a single extra second for prep.

EVIDENCE:

Unless I consider that a piece of evidence can decide the round or one of the teams tells me to look at the evidence I would generally abstain from reading any evidence. As for teams who request evidence, if it is a weird argument I understand you may want to look at a specific piece of evidence. But, for teams who ask for an entire case worth of evidence, you will see a speaker points reduction, we came to debate not to wait 4 minutes between them searching and you reading cards after every speech.

María Jimenez

I studied and practice law. I'm familiar and like the economic/social/historical arguments. I've been coaching PF since 2017 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.

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 hear CX but won't flow it. I'll note cool stuff in the hopes it makes it into your speech.

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.

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.

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.

email: mariaalexandrajimenezcano@gmail.com

Background

I debated PF for four years at New Horizons in the Dominican Republic. Now a college student at Fordham University, I as well am a middle school and high school debate coach.

Fast, OPTIONAL ways to gain rapport with me in any debate format:

If you're funny, you got a lot going for you. Or if you can quote comedy shows or vines [Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Modern Family, honestly almost anything from tik tok) in a funny way, you will definitely make me happy. Just make sure you understand the difference between humor and making fun of someone. Adding to that I am a HUGE fan of quality turns to arguments and even CA. Again all of these are optional and by no means are you to feel obligated in doing so.

Arguments

Relax, feel free to run whatever you like in front of me. I firmly believe that judging is about evaluating the arguments made in the round. But as mentioned previously, please take note that whatever the argument is, it has to be counterargued at least once for me to take it into consideration.

Flow

Being a flow judge, my flow will consist of three things:

#1 Warranting: Each time an argument is presented, I will only consider it part of the round if it is explained. If you just briefly touch over the concept without details it won't count as an argument to me. Your best chance to warrant these arguments will always be during Constructive or Rebuttal (sometimes even CX). If a new argument and warrant are added after those two speeches, It is very rare for me to take them into consideration.

#2 Impacts Calculus (IC): When trying to convince me of any argument, your best shot is through IC. Make sure to tell me exactly why you win and to what extent. Also, don't forget signposting for this part. It doesn't have to be too long of an intro, but just make sure to mention it (Ex: Quantification: x and y)

#3 Responses: If you did the two things mentioned above and never kept defending those arguments, then good luck getting my vote for them. If the opposing team questions, doubts, or attacks your argument, by all means, you should respond it with defense. Un-responding would just give the point to the other team.

Framework

I don't really mind if you do or don't have a framework. Just keep in mind what you think is best for your case. If you do not agree with the opponent's framework make sure to voice it, tell me why, and give a suggestion. On the other hand, if you do have a framework make sure to mention why it matters. Also, all frameworks should be giving both teams the opportunity to win the round, please make it fair. Yet, if it is an unfair framework and it goes unargued I will not take away any points. (the same thing goes for any definitions)

Speed

I don't really mind speed. I am okay when flowing, though my only wish is to please emphasize and slow down a bit when regarding any important matters through your tone. (Ex: quantification, crucial evidence, etc) This way I'll make sure to write it down in my flow.

Speaker points

Everyone starts at 28

30 – I applaud, you truly spilled all the tea

29 – I think you deserve to break

28 - If y'all chill

27 – Speeches were ok but disorganized. No signposting and smooth flow of ideas. OR crossfire was messy and unprofessional.

26 – I think you should really practice more.

25 - I will tell you at the end of the round why I am giving you this, in all...

24 and below: If you're rude or purposefully disrespectful, consider yourself lucky if you just get a 24.

Crossfire

I don't mind some small interruptions (keyword on "small") during CX's. Crossfires should not be taken too aggressively, please let both sides make and answer questions. Use your three minutes wisely, keeping your professionalism intact. I have no problem with histrionic rounds but please don't overdo it :)

Speeches:

Please please please, speak up, I'm kind of deaf and really appreciate a clear and well-volumed speech.

Rebuttal: emphasize and extend why the opponent's arguments are wrong or irrelevant. You are more than free to use Debate terms (non-unique, short link circuit, etc.)

Summary: It's the key to the debate for me. Include impact calculus and remember to NOT add any new arguments in both Summary or Final Focus.

Final Focus:

NO new arguments should be added that were not mentioned in Summary or Rebuttal. Mention everything that was stated in the Summary and how yours is outweighing theirs (IC). Lastly, some information about the Grand-Cross could be reargued to clear anything up, but should not be the main focus.

Good luck guys!