Email chain: chris.delacruz.ku@gmail.com

Background: I did policy debate & speaking events in forensics at Field Kindley High School in SEK for 3 years. I graduated in 2003. Never even considered college debate. I was a Lawrence Free State HS assistant debate coach in Fall 2019. I haven't engaged with debate since 2020.

Approach: I lean heavily policymaker because my region preferred it but I have been pushed to embrace theory oriented debate as well. I view debate as a space where big ideas or practical ideas can be presented, challenged, and evaluated. Though policy is easiest to do that with, theory can be evaluated as well. As such, I'm more substantive and less technical as a judge. A debater that aims to actually win arguments has a better chance of winning my ballot.

Speed: I average 1 tournament per year for the last decade which is both good and bad for you. The good news is: I've been outside the culture long enough for my debate career biases to be diminished. The bad news is: I don't get the practice required to keep up with speed. My speed tolerance is moderate.

CX: I rarely flow CX. If I hear a question and/or response that sound like they should be weighed, or might come back, I'll add it to my flow.

Topicality: Run T at your leisure. I will never punish you for running an argument in earnest or as strategy. Just try not to waste your own time on it if you don't truly believe in it and plan to go for it. You'll lose out somewhere else and that's just sad.

Disadvantages: I will go where you lead me when it comes to advantages vs disadvantages. Just try to make the story coherent. Help me out, don't conflate disads and turns.

Kritiks:Remember, I judge 1x per year. I can follow theory, but I don't know your authors unless they're dead philosophers. Run theory at your leisure, but don't rely on shorthand to debate for you.

Counterplans: I love a good counter plan but I won't go out of my way to connect the dots for you. PICs are fine. It's the affirmative's job to beat them.

Prep Time: I'm not a clock watcher. Don't abuse it.

I debated at Emporia High School for four years and coached there during the 2018-2019 school year. I have not yet judged any rounds on this topic, so please explain topic-specific information thoroughly. For additional background info about myself, I graduated from Emporia State in August of 2020 with a degree in Economics with minors in Political Science and Ethnic and Gender Studies. I currently work as a data analyst with data involving Medicaid/Medicare, specifically behavioral health programs.

If you need to add me to an email chain, or wish to contact me with any further questions from rounds, my email is emmagpersinger@gmail.com.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, ask before the round.

General

I expect debates to be done in a professional and polite manner. Be assertive with your arguments, but I will not tolerate blatant rudeness or prejudice. Debate is meant to be an inclusive space, and I expect everyone to treat each other as such. I would hope to not encounter any serious issues regarding this, but am not afraid to dock speaker points/vote you down if there are any problems on this matter.

Regionals will be my first time judging online, but given the nature of video calls I can anticipate that things may not always be as clear as they would be in person. I would like to be included in exchange of speech docs, and recommend you slow down on anything that is not expressly written on the document in particular.

Speed

I competed in the DCI division for two years doing high speed debates, so I have been exposed to spreading before. However, that has been three years, and when I was a coach two years ago I primarily judged in the novice division. That said, if you are going to spread I need you to ease me into it. Do NOT start off at your full speed, work up to it. Also, you need to be clear. This means slowing down on tags and enunciating words. If you are not clear, I will stop flowing. On theory arguments, topicality, and Ks, you will need to slow down.

Disads

I love plan specific disadvantages, but I understand generics are typically necessary. Specific links are good, but if you do not have one you need to at least contextualize it to the round. I like to see complete 1NC shells for these disads. Cards should fully warrant out uniqueness, link, an internal link, and an impact. I am willing to listen to and weigh any impacts that you choose to run. Impact calculus is very important.

Counterplans

Counterplans are fine. You need a net benefit to win and a complete counterplan text. I am also open to counterplan theory. If you run a delay counterplan, I will be very likely to vote on theory against it.

Topicality

I like topicality a lot. I prefer more specific topicality arguments rather than generics, but I am willing to listen to any you present. If you are running topicality, you need to warrant everything out. This is an argument a lot of people think they can skim over, but if you are not going in-depth with it you are not being persuasive. Fully cover standards and don't shadow extend. I default to competing interpretations, but if there is no answer to reasonability fw then I will judge topicality as such. T is never a reverse voting issue.

Kritiks

I was not a critical debater in high school. The only K I personally read was neoliberalism, so any other literature I am going to be unfamiliar with. With that said, I am not opposed to you running Ks, but you are going to have to slow down and simplify the debate for me. This means avoiding the use of jargon, and fully explaining each level.

I honestly would prefer that you avoid Ks other than neolib in front of me, but you ultimately make the decision on what is most strategic for you.

CX

I will pay attention during cx and how it impacts the round. Use it strategically. Be assertive but not mean.

Case

Aff

I don't have much preference on what kind of affirmative you read. I read a lot of smaller, structural impacts in high school; however, I am good with whatever kind of impacts you have as long as you warrant how you get to them and are able to weigh them against the negative team. My thoughts on critical affirmatives are very similar to how I feel about Ks. I have very little experience with them, which doesn't necessarily mean I am unwilling to hear them it just means you are going to have to do more work than with some other judges.

Neg

I personally love case debate. I think it is very important that affs have a prima facie case. If you are able to provide evidence that they are not and warrant out why that is a voter, I am willing to vote on the case flow. Circumvention is persuasive and presumption is a voter. Even if you are not typically a case-oriented debater, I think it is important you address case in some manner or it is going to be easy for the aff to weigh their case against your offcase.

About me: I debated all 4 years of high school and I am a freshman at KU.

General Approach: It's your job to win my ballot, not mine. I'm willing to vote on a lot of different things for a lot of different reasons, but that's not a decision I want to have to make and I won't do any of your work for you (i.e. tell me what I should be voting on and why). If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then I expect you to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless you win that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn). Tell me where the work you're doing goes and what it's responding to, I won't do it for you.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody that I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you.
• Cross Examination - Don't use cross-ex to make arguments, and don't badger each other incessantly. Make your point or get an answer, then move on.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer, but I won't take it upon myself to police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules)

• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets developed beyond each side establishing that they have a framework different from the other team.
• Kritiks - I am not the biggest fan of them, but you can still win on it. I prefer that there is an alternative, and that it has a text. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. It also help if you do plan to go for it you spend time on it and truly explain the alt. I also per if you slow down on them.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets developed beyond each side reading a frontline.

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• IMPACT CALC!!!!
• Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
• The 2NR and 2AR are where you choose what to win the round on. I don't want you to try to win it multiple times in multiple ways, I want you to win it once and in the best way possible.