My name is Michael Guerra-York, my previous experience consists of 3 years of LD debate and informative speaking. I prefer traditional debate rounds. Do not spread or you will lose. I will flow the round and take my notes after the round. I judge primarily overall presentation and whoever convinces me of their side better. Argumentation is the biggest factor in this. Further, any disrespect will not be tolerated and will result in a loss. Overall, have fun. 

Below are my paradigms sorted by event.

Best of luck!

General:

• Spreading is okay as long as your opponents and I can understand you.

• If possible, I’d like a copy of your case(s), but it is not required by any means. This will just be for my own reference to follow along in the round, and I will return it/delete it at the end of the round if requested (this will not impact my decision at all. If you are unable to provide a copy, that is perfectly fine!).

• For debate, please state an outline before your speech, so that I can know how many pages I need for flow.

• I will keep time, as should the competitors. I can give time signals if requested.

Policy:

Anything not listed here is pretty much free game. Do as you please, but back it up with evidence and be respectful.

• I'm okay with Kritiks, but make the connection to the resolution extremely clear using evidence. If it is not clear, or if the connection is weak, I will disregard it.

Example: Using this year's resolution, "The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection of water resources in the United States,” you can run a feminism Kritik, but if you have no cards with information on how feminism impacts water resources in the US, I will disregard it. The evidence needs to directly establish a correlation. Implications make a weak case. It needs to be clearly stated.

• No game theory. I won’t dock points for it, but it won't be considered in my deciding the ballot.

• I will hear out Topicality, but again, it needs to be boldly stated, with your points crystal clear. You need to provide evidence. I will not weigh topicality heavier than other voters, nor will it be the sole reason for a vote.

• Disadvantages hold the same weight as Advantages in regards to voters.

Public Forum:

Anything not listed here is pretty much free game. Do as you please, but back it up with evidence and be respectful.

• I prefer arguments over style. I do not mind the way you debate the topic, but I will weigh the arguments made more than style in my vote.

• Any argument that you would like considered as a voter needs to be extended to the rebuttal/ summary speech(es).

• I will vote on arguments raised in crossfire only if they are extended to the rebuttal/summary speech(es).

• I weigh analytics and evidence equally, but you cannot have one without the other. If you have analytics, but weak evidence, I will not vote on it, vice versa.

Lincoln- Douglas:

Anything not listed here is pretty much free game. Do as you please, but back it up with evidence and be respectful.

• You can read Kritiks, or Counterplans, but make sure you stick to the general structure of LD otherwise.

Traditional style LD, be respectful in the round. If you speak clearly and are not harassing to your opponent, you will be successful.

be swag.

policy is not swag.

K’s in LD=not swag

progressive stuff be careful, or no swag.

Following flow, determines swag.

Ik LD and PF, not Policy.

the quicker you speak the less I write down

i don’t know policy lingo

SO basically keep it traditional, and you'll achieve swag.

I judge very highly based on speaking. Debate is not just the art of "being right". It is the art of convincing someone, namely me, that you are right. If you have a great flow and argumentation, but speak incredibly fast with no emotional or weighted impacts spoken in a dispassionate tone, ill be more likley to vote for your opponant who spoke better. That is not to say I dont flow, but I do not vote exclusively off of it. It is a balance. You must have good argumentation spoken well. Obviously if you demolish the flow and it is not close I will vote soly based on that. Outside that scenario, however, I vote very highly on speaking. Do not spread or I WILL vote you down.

In congressional debate specifically, I HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY discourage one sided debate. If you give the second or third speech on a POL in a row (or motion to open debate on a POL specifically just to give a speech and its the only speech on that side) i will vote you down 

Have fun and be energetic. Let me know that you want to be here.

My paradigm is pretty simple:

I don't really like spreading but if you want to I'll tolerate it but if I don't hear something, it wasn't said.

I prefer clear, concise arguments and cases. Getting overly convoluted could but won't necessarily hurt you. If I don't understand your argument, it's a bad argument.

I will not tolerate rudeness toward your opponent even if their argument is objectively the dumbest thing ever stated in history.

I judge first on the merit of one's arguments and second on speaking skill. That being said, speaking skill does make your argument sound like it has more merit.

Have a consistent value framework in LD.

I do my best to keep my own politics out of the debate, so you can get a little riskier with your evidence.

Analysis is very important but be prepared to have stats to back it.

I'm not very familiar with K's so run them at your own peril.

I look forward to judging your round,

Keith

email chain - AiriyannahWashington1@gmail.com

I debated in policy for 3 years at Truman high school, along with doing oratory and ld.

*IF VIRTUAL*

you should turn on cameras when it is your turn to speak unless your device can't do that for whatever reason.

quality > speed. we are online so being able to clearly hear arguments matters over speed.

I give feedback, but give me time to finish my rfd and comments.

When it comes to this years policy topic, I have little knowledge on it, so please be clear on your tag lines and what you're referencing to.

Things You shouldn't do

Being sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or any of the ists. If I find you to be doing ANY of these things, I am giving you the lowest ranks possible, you lose the round and I will stop listening.

Giving me a 100-page doc as your evidence. that isn't a speech doc and I shouldn't have to search for what you're saying.

Be weird about giving your evidence to your opponents.

Policy -

I vote on flow not speaking ability.

I will more likely than not vote on solvency.

Disads

do not care for extinction impacts since the likelihood of one plan being able to cause that is unlikely, but have a good internal link and it's valid.

Cps

I think cps are pretty cool if ran correctly. unfortunately, that is a rarity. if you do run one please have a net benefit. no net benefit = no case

Topicality

I do not see a point in running topicality unless you really feel bringing it up is vital in the round. technicality and impact calc is key in topicality. I would like to see it.

kritiks

(novice running k's? okay)

I like policy args more but on K's, I go as far fem, abolition, and anti-blackness. If you go outside of that I can probably follow and flow. on neg, you need to explain to me extensively on your links, and more on why I should vote on this. weigh the k against the aff. on Aff, I feel kritiks should still be somewhat in the resolution. I will more often than not lean more on the topicality argument if you don't explain to me your case well. Essentially, explain and overextend.

I don't care for abusive args but if you feel something in the round is abusive, run it I guess.

Lastly, HAVE FUN. nothing is worse than being in a round where it is hostile and everyone doesn't want to be there. Trust me I've been in those rounds and I don't want to judge one.