Last changed on
Wed October 16, 2024 at 10:11 AM EDT
**Arturo Féliz-Camilo**
Hello! I’m the head coach at Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons.
I have a background in law and have been teaching AP US History for a while. I tend to prefer economic, social, and historical arguments. Since 2013, I’ve primarily coached Public Forum (PF).
When judging, I really enjoy a good clash of ideas and creative analysis. I’m open to just about any argument, as long as you explain it clearly, warrant it, and back it up with relevant evidence. That said, being "open to anything" doesn’t mean I’m okay with distasteful arguments—keep it civil and respectful.
I don’t strictly fall into either the tech>truth or truth>tech camps. Think of me as closer to a lay judge. Just because “there’s a card” doesn’t mean I’ll automatically buy the argument. Make sure your arguments are well-explained and warranted. I need to understand what you're saying to be persuaded, so clarity is key.
Communication is crucial. If I can’t follow due to speed, I may not flow it. I usually won’t ask you to slow down because I prefer to avoid intervening, but if you’re spreading, that’s going to be a problem. I can handle a reasonably fast pace, but don’t expect to win by brute force alone.
I appreciate a respectful CX. If you need to ask for evidence, that’s fine, but don’t turn the round into an evidence battle. If you call for evidence, I hope you plan to actually use it. I listen to CX but don’t flow it. I’ll make note of interesting points in hopes they come up in the speeches. I almost never review evidence unless there’s a serious claim or ethical issue. If I feel like you misrepresented or misused a card, you’ll likely lose the round. I definitely prefer debates that are more conversational in pace.
Feel free to give an off-time roadmap—no need to ask, just go ahead.
Explain, analyze, and warrant your case—don’t just read it. Weigh the arguments, link them, extend points, crystallize the round. Without clear framework and weighing, I’ll default to what’s standing at the end of the debate. Please don’t introduce new arguments in summary or final focus.
As for T's and K's, run them at your own risk. I’m not totally against them, but I tend to favor a good RVI and I’m not a fan of running these against inexperienced or novice teams. I also think T's get abused too often, so be honest with it. I’ll weigh what makes sense, including any real-world harms like abusive behavior or bad-faith misgendering.
Pettiness won’t win me over, but you should still stand your ground. A little sass is great, but there’s a fine line between sass and pettiness, so be mindful of that.
If you’d like feedback after the round, I’m always happy to share my thoughts, but know that I submit my ballots before offering feedback. I understand that some rounds (like bubble rounds) matter a lot, but I don’t check records before submitting my decision. I hope that regardless of the outcome, you leave each round feeling that it was a meaningful experience.
Please add me to your evidence chain: **arturo@arturofeliz.com**