Coach @ Asian Debate League

Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas, 2017

Debated 4 years NDT/CEDA/D3 at University of Kansas, 2021

Email chain: gaboesquivel@gmail.com

I treat judging debate with the same love and care that I treat my job. I love what we do.

My biases:

I lean aff for condo. Some might say too much. I might expect a lot from you if you do go for it.

I didn't go for K's much but I really like debating them vs my policy aff. More than policy v policy debates. Links are the most important thing for me. Impacts are a close second. I value consistency between the scale of the links and impacts i.e. in round impacts should have in round links.

I strongly bias toward "The K gets links and impacts vs the aff's fiated impacts" unless someone delivers a very persuasive speech. I can be persuaded that making a personal ethical choice is more important than preventing a nuclear war.

I lean toward affs with plans. Fairness concerns me less than usual nowadays. I like research/clash impacts.

I will read evidence and vote for evidence in debates where things are not settled by the debater's words. This happens frequently in T debates and impact turn debates.

Status quo is always an option=judge kick

How I judge:

I work hard to listen and read your evidence. I am honest about what I don't understand. I am patient with novices.

Be clear or go slower (7 or 8/10) for online debate otherwise I'll miss the nuance in your arguments. I clear twice before I stop flowing.

I flow and use everything I hear in my decision, and overemphasize what is said in the rebuttals. I'll reference the 1AR speech to protect the 2NR on a 2AR that "sounds new" and I'll reference the block on a 2NR that claims the 1AR dropped something. I'll reference a 2AC on a 1AR that claims the block dropped something, etc.

For a dropped argument to be a true argument it must have been a complete claim and warrant from the beginning. I am not a fan of being "sneaky" or "tricky". Unless you are going for condo ;)

I am persuaded by ethos and pathos more than logos. I find myself wanting to vote for a debater who tries to connect with me more than a debater who reads a wall of blocks even if they are technically behind. When both teams are great speakers I rely more on tech and evidence.

I try to craft my decision based on language used by the debaters. I reference evidence when I cannot resolve an argument by flow alone. PhD's, peer reviewed journals, and adequate highlighting will help you here. If I can't resolve it that way I'll look for potential cross applications or CX arguments and might end up doing work for you. If I do work for one team I will try to do the same amount for the other team. It might get messy if its close, that's what the panel is for, but please challenge my decision if you strongly disagree and I'll tell you where my biases kicked in.

**Pronounced (Kay-pen)

Debated in middle school and high school; experience with policy and public forum.

Flow judge, focus on argumentation and clash over reading pieces of evidence.

I'm okay with anything; speed is fine if you are clear.

Marquis Lewis

Clarion University

Years Judging: 0

Debated at Clarion University for 3 years.

Hello, reader. As a first time judge of college debate (I have done two years of high school judging), here are what you should know about me if I am in the back of the room.

1. You should constantly be looking at me while debating in the round. I am fairly expressive and will show you when I approve, disapprove, or am confused during a debate. If you see confusion, that should be a cue to clarify your position/arguments, especially if you are talking about philosophical positions.

2. Please be civil to one another. I appreciate the spirit of competition and some good-natured teasing. I do NOT like rude or hurtful comments and am willing to dock speaker points if you choose to act like an ass during round.

3. Have fun while debating. Show enthusiasm, make me laugh (I love a good joke and will award better points to people who get a chuckle out of me). I hate the idea of participating in a sport about speaking and not taking advantage of the power of theatricality and performance.

4. Don't refer to me as JUDGE, please call me Marquis.

As for arguments, here is what you will want to know:

1. Theory/Framework: I love a good debate on the rules, structures, and definitions of debate (I am an English major, 'nuff said). That being said, if I do not have a clear framework or method for weighing impacts in a round, I default to Utilitarianism. As for theory, show me the abuse to win. I allow 1 conditional position and the status quo without pulling any triggers on theory. If the NEG has more than that, we can have a debate.

2. Topicality: ALL AFFIRMATIVE PLANS MUST BE TOPICAL. I do not care what some say about topicality being genocidal or marginalizing. If you do not endorse the topic as the affirmative, you lose in front of me. What counts as meeting the line of topicality (substantial debates, for example), I am willing to give leeway, since this is a game of words and persuasive capabilities.

3. The Critique (most call it the K, but I took French, not German, so I spell it that way): I am willing to hear critiques. I don't try to discourage too many arguments. However, if I don't understand it, I will not vote on it (refer to the number 1 of the previous section). Philosophy/critical arguments are not my strong suit, but a good debater will explain his/her position to those who may not be as well-versed in their field of study.

4. Politics: I am in complete adoration of Politics DAs. This shows a person's persuasiveness and critical thinking abilities to the fullest. I want to hear these all the time.

5. Counter-plans: I like them. Different views on how to solve a problem is what debate is about. Use them wisely. I don't allow abuse to go unpunished.

That is what I can think of at this time. If you have any questions of me, feel free to ask before the round. I will take any inquiry and answer to the best of my ability.