Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 3:10 AM PDT
Philosophy: I approach debate as an educational activity that values clarity, argumentation, and strategic thinking. Debaters should engage in well-researched and informed discussions, prioritizing depth over breadth. I appreciate creativity and unique arguments but expect them to be grounded in evidence and logic.
Framework: I default to a policymaker perspective, meaning I will evaluate the round based on which team provides the most compelling reasons to adopt or reject the proposed policy. However, I am open to alternative frameworks if both teams agree on an alternative way to evaluate the round. Without a clear framework, I will default to a policy-focused approach.
Flowing: I flow the round and prioritize arguments made in constructive speeches and extended in later speeches. Clear signposting and road mapping help me follow your arguments better. If an argument is dropped, it is the responsibility of the opposing team to point it out.
Evidence: Quality evidence is crucial. I prefer well-cited and recent evidence that directly supports your claims. I am skeptical of evidence taken out of context, so provide a nuanced and accurate representation of your sources.
Clash: I appreciate substantive clashes between teams. Rebuttals should not solely focus on defense but should engage with the core arguments presented by the opposing team. The more direct clash and engagement with your opponent's case, the better.
Speaker Points: I award speaker points based on clarity, organization, strategic thinking, and effective cross-examination. Being respectful and professional is also essential. High speaker points are earned through strong argumentation and effective communication.
Speed: I am comfortable with speed but prioritize clarity over speed. If I cannot understand your arguments, I cannot evaluate them. Be mindful of your pacing and make sure to signpost clearly.
Flexibility: While I default to a policymaker framework, I am open to evaluating the round through different lenses if both teams provide reasons. Adaptability and responsiveness to the arguments made in the round are key.
ADD ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN
meilirubio7@gmail.com
