Background Info:

- Debated 4 years in high school for Downtown Magnets High School, currently studying in UCI and use my free time to judge debate tournaments. :(

-Currently a Sophomore at UCI. :(

- I'm experienced in judging in more local tournaments, but it is nice to judge different teams from different places and it's great to see a diversity in arguments.

Debate Arguments:

- You can honestly run anything you want. It can be 8 off or 1 off, as long as your comfortable with your arguments.

- I do like certain arguments such as topicality, critiques, and political affirmatives. However, you don't have to run these arguments if you don't want to evidently.

- I don't have much preferences besides having good line by line arguments(organization), contextualizing arguments(especially if it's a K), and clash in the debate round.

Speaker Points:

-I usually don't give low speaker points to anyone really, the only thing I would encourage is to not rely too much in tag team cross-ex and do not come across as rude.

-Also(VERY IMPORTANT), I do give out bonus speaker points to those who take the challenge to either relate the round to a meme(joke) or philosophical arguement. Anything that makes the round "entertaining" is recommended to get those high speaks.

- That's pretty much it, good luck :)

She/her

3 years experience as a policy debater

Judging/Coaching & Teaching debate since 2017

Big fan of radical reform arguments and analytic heavy argumentation.

Totally open to weighing T and Framework as voters in the round, but if they are THE voter give it it's due diligence. As far as K's and DA's go, you need to sell me on your link story so your impacts and alts are logical next steps and not reaches or jumps. At the end of the day, if you can sell the argument to me I'm likely to buy it. Do your thing!

Beyond clarity, technicality, and presenting ability; the better you are at demonstrating content knowledge, developing arguments beyond just reading evidence, and weaponizing in round happenings for offense: the higher the speaker points distributed will be. The only individual action that will negatively affect my ballot is if discourse gets too catty/heated between debaters and if after being warned said verbal aggression/rudeness/etc. continues then speaks will be docked.

Affiliations:

SVUDL 2018 to present

LAMDL 2020 to present

Yerba Buena High School 2018 to 2022

Stanford 2022 to present

Pref Recommendations (For LD):

1 - Policy, Ks

2 - T

3 - K Affs, theory

5 - Phil

Strike - Tricks

About me:

Hi, my name is Kastella/Kas. You can call me either of those. I debated at Yerba Buena High School in CX (2 years) then switched to LD (2 years). I mainly debated on the circuit and read soft left affs, ks (mainly cap k), das, and t. If it matters, I did not bid but broke multiple times at tournaments such as Berkeley, Nano Nagle, Loyola, Jack Howe, etc. 

My pronouns are she/they. I will use they for anyone I am not familiar with, please let me know if you would prefer otherwise. 

Add me to the email chain - kastella2004@gmail.com

Tech > Truth

Clarity > Speed

I LOVED spreading when I debated. It was my favorite part of debate, so feel free to do your thing. However, be clear. I'll say clear once or twice but after that, it's up to you to continue. Your speaks will suffer if I can't understand you.

Everything in this paradigm is simply preference. I have been removed from debate for a while, so while I am not as familiar as I used to be, one thing stays true: debate is what you make of it. Do what makes you comfortable and I will try my best to evaluate the debate fairly. However, I will not vote on any arguments or behaviors that makes the debate unsafe (racism, sexism, etc).

Stuff to know:

Sept/Oct Topic: I don't know anything about this topic, so beware!

Kritiks: This was my main strat when I debated. I think that ks are good and strategic. While I am most familiar with the cap k and its variations, feel free to run any k. However, I need a good link story, which can be developed in cx and in the 2nr. Without it, I have a hard time voting for you if I don't see how the aff links. I don't have as strong of an opinion on the alt or framework but if you are going one off, those matter a lot more. If you plan to run this on the aff, I have a similar opinion. You should be able to defend your model of debate and have a clear link to the topic. If you don't have a link, give me good reasons on why that is/why that's a good thing.

DAs: Love these! I appreciate specific links and good link chains. Basically, I like a good story. Each part of the DA needs work to be done to have a solid link chain: how does the link lead to the impact? Is your impact bigger than the aff? Is this DA likely? All things to consider. If the internal link doesn't make sense, there is a smaller threshold for the aff to answer the DA in my opinion. 

CPs: Should be competitive with the aff. PICs are questionable. I dislike multi-plank CPs. Don't have a huge opinion on CPs. If you decide to read multiple, theory is not your friend, especially if the abuse is clear. If not, then you're good. 

T: While I try to be fair, I err on competing interps. Interps should also be carded. Reasonability is something I would be willing to vote on but I probably need more than that to safely vote aff. As for the neg, your responsibility is convincing me that the aff is untopical, which means I need clear standards to your interp. 

Theory: I'm fine with theory. I have a higher threshold for voting on it but if there is a clear violation to a reasonable interp you set out, chances are I'll be voting on it if you do the work. However, I need it to be more than just a blip. Simply saying condo bad with no clear interp or standards is not enough. Reasonability means a lot to me and is underutilized. Also, if you plan to run RVIs, that will be an uphill battle but not impossible. As a disclaimer, I care a lot about disclosure as a former small school debater. I read disclosure theory a lot as well. That being said, there has to be a reasonable violation for me to vote on that as well. 

Framework: Feel free to run it. Similar to T, I need a clear interp, violation, etc. The aff should have to defend their model of debate and you should be able to defend yours. Definitely have a TVA. I enjoy tricky arguments on framework and creativity. 

Trad: I debated in trad, so I have a decent understanding. As long as you are able to defend your case versus an NC or a circuit debater's strategy, then feel free to run your strat. 

Phil: I don't have much experience in phil nor did I debate it much. I will evaluate it as long as you are able to explain it to me. Treat me as a parent judge in this regard.

Tricks: Not viable. I will not vote for it, so would not recommend trying.

Overall, these are just my opinions. You do you. Be nice. Have fun. 

Let me know if you have any questions or clarifications though. See you soon! :)

My name is Alexander Ramirez. I was a part of LAMDL debate for about 2 and half years when I was in high school. I competed in varsity, but did not continue debating into university. For a couple of instances during university and consistently after graduating with a BA, I continue to judge for LAMDL and spend time with my former high school team.

I do not prioritize certain arguments over others, but instead place a bigger emphasis on extending files; both on and off cases. DA, K, T, CP, and Case are all file types I am familiar with, but each file type has a way to win off of. Theory arguments are fine, but please make sure you explain your arguments well if you're planning on winning with a theory argument.

Let's have a good debate!

Paradigm: "Leah Clark-Villanueva"

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=27318