little about me: d1 pacific champion, 2019 western novice policy debate champion— i go to ucla now and don’t compete anymore but did debate at fullerton college under coaches jeanette rodriguez & toni nielson. my hearing is horrible so it would be great for everyone if ya’ll could speak louder :-) like plz lol if i don’t hear your arg that’s no good for you either

add me to the chain! — germainebaltazar@gmail.com

important! spreading it's chill... until it comes at the expense of clarity. again, my ears. if you have prewritten analytical arguments, do not spread them at me or you can be sure i'll miss some. i know spreading allows us to cram in tons of arguments but that's not always better. "but we said this" is not enough for me; the act of you responding to an arg is not the same as you explaining what that arg means in the context of this round and why you win something as a result

flowing — roadmap before speeches and signpost as you go, do something to distinguish the tag/author from the warrants srsly if you don’t tell me where something goes i’m either not going to write it down or spend extra time trying to find it’s correct location, during which you will probably be reading another card or arg that i will then completely miss

prep if i can tell you're responsibly timing yourself, i'll leave it to you. don't take advantage

theory & t i prefer case debates, lean aff for T, not familiar with theory at all so if that's you-- focus less on how many things you can say and more on how well you can get me to understand who or what you're reading. i usually lean tech>truth but in this case it's truth>tech

k — like them but they need to be explained really well. i’m more of a traditional plan debater so k affs are not really my forte but just make your args/explanations clear and you’re good. explain link and tell me how the alt works and why i prioritize it over the aff

cp not a big fan if it’s super similar to the plan but will still vote on it if net benefit to preferring cp is well emphasized and/or aff has solvency deficit.

da love das, tell me the story~ go hard on the link tho

cx i live for every minute of cx especially when it’s feisty (but respectful). as long as the heat is necessary and stems from passion, it’s all good. sometimes people get riled up on the smallest, most trivial points though— be strategic

p.s i do take notes on cx.. it’s binding oof

speaks high speaker points go to those who ....

say their arguments like they mean it, ask purposeful & strategic cx questions, demonstrate a clear understanding of their own arg (how are you using your cards?)

also, love love when there’s a clear articulation of w h y something matters/matters more/doesn’t matter. tell me what i should bother weighing at the end of the day, less intervention on my behalf so win-win for everyone

evan.sp.jensen@gmail.com

*Flow everything, especially feedback.

*Always signpost and provide road maps. Slow down when reading tags and authors. I want to understand what you are saying and organize it; help me out.

*DO NOT steal prep time. I will subtract stolen prep from your time remaining and it will count against your speaker points. When you or your opponent are not running prep time pencils must be down and do not play with your laptop. I give a reasonable amount of time to send files which I do not count as prep. If you are having trouble uploading or sending let both myself and your opponent know. Be fair and courteous to your opponent.

*If you spread and I cannot understand you, I will not be able to fully comprehend your argument. Start slower and work into your spreading so I can adapt to how your sprea.

*Voters - from the beginning of the debate you should be telling me how to frame my vote. What does my vote do and why is your definition of it to be preferred.

Evidence - Use and extend your evidence, but don't just blanket extend all your cards.

Impacts and solvency are key for me. I enjoy real world impact arguments, as rare as they may be. You need to really make me believe you are changing something for the better and tell me exactly how much and why I should vote for you over your opponent.

Topicality arguments must be well explained or run when there are clear violations; explanation must be concise and valid.

CX

I love a respectful CX. If your case is good you will want to educate your opponent and myself about what your case does well. Disrespectful or rude CX will be given less weight.

If the questioner moves on to another question reasonably DO NOT just speak louder to take up cx time. You would probably find it uncool as well if done to you.

Don't make claims if you're the one asking, form a question and ask it. CX is not a time to be making arguments; save that for your speeches. CX gives me a good idea of how knowledgeable you are of your case.

Ask questions with a final end goal in mind.

Overall: Don't panic, just breathe and you will be fine. I look forward to see everyone debate.

I see debate as a space for knowledge production, where we can use our ideas about the world to transform the world or make it a better place. The debaters get to decide what the debate should be about, be that a plan text or a critical approach to the topic. There are various approaches to the resolution and I am open to listening to your particular approach. You should advocate an approach that engages/attempts to engage the resolution.

That in mind I will provide a disclaimer, do not say evil things for the sake of competition, that approach is not persuasive at all! By evil I mean saying that genocides are good/necessary or that rape is ok, this extreme is not one that will persuade me to vote for you.

Framework

NEG- If you are going to go for framework make sure that the rebuttals contextualize the framework debate to the affirmative. Specificity in these debates goes a long way because often times framework is a blanket extension of standards with no explanation as to how the 1AC in particular causes the impacts.

AFF- If you are answering framework make sure you address their interpretation or provide a counter interpretation for the debate. Alf's should attempt to address the resolution, but if you dismiss the resolution I expect there to be a defense of a non-topical approach.

Good Luck and Have Fun!

If you have any questions please feel free to email me @ jntterodriguez@gmail.com