LD Debate: I am a more traditional judge. Spreading is fine, but needs to be legible. Speaking quality is important. Debater should demonstrate quality in oratory skills, as well as argumentation. Values and criterion should support resolution with contentions that build. Cross-Examination should build level of discourse and be conducted with a high level of respect. Impacts and voter's appeal should be provided appropriately to drive home case. I am a first year Debate coach, but competed in debate in high school at Keller Central HS. I am not closed off to any type of debate, and am open-minded, despite my natural inclination to more traditional debate.

CX/Policy Debate: I am an open book and enjoy hearing nuanced and different arguments. Open to all kinds of Affs and Negs. I prefer the neg to break down to their best argument in the final rebuttals. Spreading is fine, but shouldn't interfere with ability to intake information.

BACKGROUND:

Have been involved in debate as a student, high school debater, college debater, high school coach or a college coach since the Nixon administration. Yes I actually cut Watergate cards. So pardon my smile when asked how I feel about speed etc.

PHILOSOPHY

Try to be Tab as much as possible. But like all judges I have some personal preferences listed below:

TOPICALITY

Is a voter, don't usually vote on it unless it is mishandled or extremely squirely. Make sure to have a violation, standard and voter in shell. Haven't previously voted on a RVI on T.

THEORY

Tend to look at in round abuse.

KRITIKS

They are fine, but make sure you understand the literature, spend a lot of quality time on the link and have a clear alternative.

PRESENTATION

Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you are not clear, I will say "clear". Make a clear distinction between your taglines and and your cards.

OTHER ISSUES:

Will vote you down for being rude or sarcastic. Proper decorum is a must. I will vote against sexist, racist et al. arguments.

CONCLUSION

I was fairly succinct on this paradigm, so feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Also debate should be fun. A sense of humor is always appreciated.

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it. alexpulcinedebate@gmail.com he/him.

If you need to contact me for whatever reason (including docs) email me at apulcine23@gmail.com. Please do not put this email on the chain.

tldr: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and make the debate accessible. If you have questions, ask them. For LD, most everything applies, just for phil rounds hold my hand and trix are probably a no for me.

Speaks: To get good speaks in front of me I want good line by line, impact weighing, and judge instruction. I also try to reward strategy in speaks but not as heavily as earlier listed things. Being rude, overly aggressive, discriminatory, or just overall hateful is a pretty good way to end up with bad speaks. Something I want to make sure to emphasize is PLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE. No, I am not asking you to jeopardize the round. I am just asking that you reconsider your plan to absolutely demolish your novice opponent in an attempt to look like a good debater. If you decide against this, you won't lose the ballot but you will lose speaks and make me sad.

Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed slow down on analytics if I dont have them. Please please please please please read prewritten blocks slower than you would read a card. I'll give more leeway on this if what you're reading is in the doc but if not please slow down.

Logistics: Flash or email isn't prep just don't take forever. If you want to delete analytics from the speech doc please do so before ending prep.

T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.

Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc with no verbatim heading.

DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat. Using aff evidence, cx, and strategic choice of other off to get links for a disad is impressive and can be good strategy.

CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Make sure your cp text is specific and says the part of the aff that cp does. Something like "Have the executive do the aff" or " Do the aff and ..." is not good practice, just take the 15 seconds to type it out. I wouldn't say that cps must have a solvency advocate but it's a debate to be had that I probably favor the aff in. Don't let this discourage you from reading an analytical cp against new affs or in general, just wanted to state my bias in the issue. Reading 5 cps with no solvency advocate = :( . Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like. Tell me if you want 2nr judge kick.

K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. I think long K overviews don't help my understanding as much as you would think / as much as they might for other judges. I would much rather a shorter overview and more explanation in the line by line.

K Aff: Same thing as K, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them. I feel like affs should win their model and be able to tell me what voting aff does.

Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.

LD: for larp / k everything above applies. Feel free to have a more traditional round but just understand that I rely heavily on offense / defense in my understanding of debate so you will need to do work in that respect. Phil - I'm not totally against it, I just rarely judge these types of debates so you will need to hold my hand. I will most likely have little to zero prior knowledge on your phil lit.I also have trouble voting for phil debaters that don't answer / only answer with phil args vs policy arguments. Trix - probably not your guy, if you decide to read trix anyways explain acronyms, give me extra pen time, and generally walk me through your args like you would a T.

POLICY: I care about the stock issues. If done well, and related directly to the Aff. case, then I will accept Neg. Kritiks and counter-plans (CPs are expected in most arguments). If you spread incomprehensibly, you will lose points. Do not use theory based or alternate world cases. I will not allow open CX. Also, answering, "my partner will answer that" is not an acceptable response--know your case. Your analysis should be supported by “tangible” evidence. Substance is more important than quantity, and fallacies in your argument will cost points. No new in the 2!

LD: I am a traditional value/criterion judge. No value, no criterion, no good. If you mention a plan, solvency, start spreading, etc... you will lose the round. No new in the 2.

EVERYONE: Speaker clarity and pronunciation are valued highly. I appreciate passionate CX and rebuttals, but do not confuse passion for yelling and verbal abuse. Varying speech rate and tone/volume will score you points. Speak like you care.

CX: I will keep an open mind about any sensible argument. CP should be non-topical and competitive. Please provide roadmaps and follow them. Signposting and structure are appreciated. Follow the roadmap established by the 1NR. Please don't say, "Next off-case" and then move to your next argument. Say, "Next, a Spending DA" or "Next a T violation on the word _____." Arguments should be properly structured and supported. A claim without warrants is not an argument. I am listening to your citations and evidence. I will not intervene or link your arguments for you. I will evaluate the round based on the arguments and under the framework presented. The negative should present offensive arguments on why the affirmative should not win the debate. Conversely, the affirmative should provide offensive arguments for why the negative's arguments should be rejected. Weigh arguments and give me a well-developed impact calculus and clear decision path. If I cannot understand you, I will say, “Louder” or “Clear.”

Congress: I have been judging Congress for 4 years.

I value logical over emotional pleas. However, a speaker should demonstrate passion for his/her position. Please do not read a pre-prepared speech verbatim. A speech should be organized, and claims should be supported by credible sources. A speech should be purposeful--defending, refuting, or qualifying points already in the record, clarifying and/or adding to the information on the topic--so please do not merely repeat information already presented by previous speakers. I use the usual parameters for judging a speaker’s presence, vocal quality, delivery, and eye contact.

LD: I value logic over emotion. Convince me that your value is the most relevant and most important. You can do this by communicating your message clearly. For me, it’s all about persuasion and each debater's ability to demonstrate a superior approach to his or her side of the resolution. Clear, concise language that is direct, to the point, and void of jargon is much appreciated. Arguments: I will listen to whatever you want to run. However, whether I'll decide based on those arguments depends entirely on how well you explain how each argument functions in the round. Communication/Speed: Speaking quickly is only effective when you form coherent sentences. If I can't understand you, I cannot give you the win. If you have a soft voice, please speak up. I need to hear every word regardless of your speed. I will say, "Louder" or "Clear" or “Slower” twice before putting down my pen as a signal that I am no longer flowing. I'm judging the quality—-not the quantity—-of your arguments, so take the time to make your arguments understood. Please signpost clearly. Be respectful to your opponent.