In short: I'll vote for anything if it's impacted well. I'm not the fastest flow, so don't speed through arguments please, particularly in the later parts of debating theory and disads. Default to competing interpretations in T-debates, ok with CPs, and partial to the K. With Ks, I'm not so seasoned with the theory that is popular in K debates, so please explain the theory in its application to the aff. Clear taglines and be collegial.

Email: reuelhsbautista@gmail.com

For LD:

Tabula Rasa

As long as the argument is well explained and the debater shows why it leads to a winning ballot, I will vote on anything.

I typically judge policy, so I might be somewhat biased to policy-esque arguments.

Make sure I'm on the email chain/speech drop and be clear on tags.

Do not make me make the arguments for you. Be clear on how and why a card or an analytic clashes with your opponent's arguments, or why it's a voter.

Make sure you have fun in the round. Do not take it too seriously. You are [probably] not actually a racist no matter what your opponent calls you.

For Policy:

Tabula Rasa

I am willing to listen to any argument as long as you explain why it leads to a winning ballot. Make it easy for me to judge the round by explaining to me what to vote for and why I should vote on it. If arguments become incomprehensible, I will default policy.

I do not like new arguments in the 2nd Negative Constructive.

Kritiks

I am mostly fine with Ks. I am not super well read on all K literature, so make sure that everything is well explained, defined and be specifically clear on the link debate. Again if the K debate gets too messy or incoherent, I will default policy.

Theory/T

Any theoretical conflict is up for debate. I will vote on T but it has to be well-developed and reasonable in the round. Otherwise, I will typically vote Aff on T as long as the aff has a reasonable response to the argument.

DA

Cool

CP

I am not the biggest fan of CP but I will usually vote on it as long as its properly debated.

Presentation

As long as I'm part of the email chain or speech doc, all you have to do is have clear tags. If for some reason I do not have access to your doc, make sure your reading is clear and comprehensible. I am fine with speed, but I will not flow anything I cannot understand. Do not make me make the arguments for you. Explain your arguments, provide analytics, and make sure you have a clear line by line. Make sure to go hard into voters in the last speech.

Don't be a jerk in-round. I will deduct speaks for unruly behavior.

My pet peeve is "in your own words" questions in cx.

General

dparkdebate@gmail.com

Northwestern

He/Him

Last Updated: April 2024

Quick Stuff

My name's David

Good for clash debates

CX heavily influences my perception of an argument

I know 0 topic literature

Post-rounding is fine

Sympathetic to novices

Non-negotiables

Blatant racism/misogyny/homophobia/transphobia/etc -> lowest speaks + L

Clipping claim -> one team gets lowest speaks + L

Presumption = NEG by default

Speech times and CX times = tournament standards

I will not evaluate anything that happened outside of the round/pre-round disclosure

General Preferences

Be nice and kind

Short functional sentences > poetry

Too much jargon -> harder to follow

Offense defense thinking -> happy judge brain

Argument = claim + warrant + impact

Tech > truth

Cross applications should be verbal

Spin > evidence quality

All links are fine, but closer to plan bad = better

Fairness is impact if fairness -> increased participation/changing opinions

I don't care much about evidence ethics arguments that don't change substance/spin

K AFF vs Framework

Explain what predictability means

Will vote on middle ground C/I

Impact turning everything is fine too

Good for presumption

Policy vs K

Ks should either rely on a causal chain or a indict AFF's entire thesis

Framework > everything

Explain your model and what ballot does

Equal FW debating = weigh AFF impacts + ALT matters

Good for "you link you lose" and "extinction outweighs"

K v K

Framework

AFFs probably get a permutation (i.e. win a link)

Specific alt explanation is better

Topicality

Probably my favorite debates

Caselists, please

You are probably not factually correct

I weigh limits/predictability vs arbitrariness

Reasonability is technically strategic but means nothing to me upfront

Counterplans

Specific counterplans, PICs, re-highlighted-1AC-card advantage counterplans = great

I'm like 60% aware of what functional/textual competition is -> go slow

Probably won't reject competitive CPs

If you have an internal NB/process thing I need to know what the key difference

I default to judge kick

Good for creative perms if explained well

Disadvantages

Politics DA = a thing

Specific DAs = great

Turns case should be contextualized to the AFFs internal links, not just impact cards

1NR with spin and less cards >>

Idk what intrinsicness is, explain slow

Case

Contesting case is good!

If the 2NR goes for case, 1AR is binding

Theory

Not condo/ethics -> reject the arg

Machine gunning -> I stop flowing

Misc.

Inserted re-highlightings are fine

Don't read into my facial expressions

I flow CX

Quick decision = decisive round

Might forget to set timers

For lay circuits - spreading's okay, open CX is okay, Ks are okay