University of Chicago 2020

araurioles2016@gmail.com 

I won't auto-vote on anything, I don't check out for arguments.

Policy Args: I enjoy policy arguments much more than I enjoy critical arguments, I guess the easiest way to put this is I wish critical teams were more practical in their alternatives. I really enjoy CP/DA debates and a good in depth case debate can tear apart an aff. 

T: It all comes down to competing interps and defining clear limits for what is and what is not topical. I think that is especially true for surveillance because all of the different kinds of it. The more you are able to do this the less likely I will vote on reasonability. I don't think you need to win much on T except for the fact that they are untopical, I don't think questions of abuse (potential and in round), education and fairness matter as much because affs should be topical. If you arent you should lose.

K's: There is a pretty good chance that unless your argument is Cap, I will have no clue what you are talking about. Critical literature is not my go to for leisure reading so I will not know what your lit base says. Explain it very well. I am not as willing to vote on the "if we win FW that means we dont have to win the alt". Granted if the other team drops this you will likely win but that is because tech>truth and not because I want to vote for you. I think Ks often times either identify non problems, are non-uq, don't disprove the aff, the alt doesn't solve, and don't give a real reason the plan is bad.

-------If you are aff and the neg reads cap I will appreciate good cards about why cap is good from economists and not your often times ridiculous impact turns like cap key to space. While I think these arguments are generally true, the neg is far more prepared for them but good cards that uphold the capitalist system in a truth/economics sense are far better and are often more qualified than their sociology professors/critical authors/non-economists. There is a reason we have an entire field that studies this and I will greatly reward (speaker points) affs that can prove cap is good on an empirical basis.

K Affs: Not a fan, I think for the most part FW is the best strategy or if you are cut from the cloth of American Hegemony the Heg Good K is always an option, but in all seriousness do what you feel gives you the best leverage against the aff and I will evaluate the debate from there. I think that affs should probably try to win some substantial impact rather than just going for something theoretical. 

Theory: I don't really want to listen to these debates since I think they are often shallow and almost never leave the realm of pre-written blocks. I don't have any preferences on theory and I usually won't think something is abusive but that is up for debate.

I probably don't want to read your evidence after the round and probably only will if there is a direct dispute over what a piece of evidence actually says.

Flashing isnt prep but it is pretty obvious if you are just trying to delete analytics and not use prep.

Great Debate Minds: Brian Rubaie, Brett Bricker, Jordan Foley, Kurt Fifelski, Adrienne Brovero, Charlie Marshall

General Tips:

1. You can call me Adam, I am not Judge
2. I would like to think I am intelligent person so not everything has to be simplified but use your discretion when it comes to very topic specific content since I have 0 rounds on the topic. 
3. It is your job to communicate and if I fail to get an argument it is more likely on you than on me.
4. Tech>Truth most of the time but it can be a case by case basis.
5. I default to I am a policymaker framework-but as soon as one team introduces a different framework (even implicitly in the 1AC like a K aff), it is the responsibility of the other team to tell me why this shouldn't be true.
6. I won't vote for you having more pathos than the other team, Clash and comparison>Pathos
7. Do not say I have an ethical or some kind of obligation. I don't have one, but if the other side doesn't respond to this, I am not voting on my obligation but instead because of a lack of the oppositions ability to answer.
8. I do not vote on "but they dropped it/it was conceded", your explanation of the impact of that concession matter far more
9. I usually give somewhere around a 28.3. Around a 28.7 means you were great and anything over a 29 is fantastic.

I debated for four years of college NPDA/NPTE style parli, which, if
you're not familiar with it, is sort of like HS circuit policy without
cards. I was generally a policy making debater, but in my final year I
ran the K quite a lot, so I'm comfortable with it.

I HAVE NOT COMPETED SINCE 2013. While I have been judging on and off, I am somewhat rusty. Just an FYI. The years have made me both modestly less competent (sorry) but also modestly kinder. While I can handle most speed in Parli, LD and Policy probably have to slow down a bit for me. I'll yell clear and will do my best, but please be aware of my limitations. 

Here's the tl;dr if you're reading this right before a round:

1. Speed, theory, k's, procedurals are totally fine.

2.  Especially important: slow down on tags so I have pen time, indicate clearly to me when you've switched from one
argument to another (numbering is great, but can be confusing because
many arguments have internal numbering, so "next" works well.)

3. Economics and politics probably need less explanation. Philosophy
(framework, especially) needs more.

4. I love a good theory debate, but I find that it's the most perishable skill in debate, so please please please be
clear, be organized, and tell me how theory arguments interact. The easiest way to win my ballot on questions of theory is to prove some theory argument is the internal link to all other theory arguments, for example.

5. I have some competence in debate and I'm reasonably intelligent, but, like most circuit judges, I am not as smart as you think I am and not nearly as smart as I think I am. Keep that in mind.

Here's the long form:

Speed/Communication:


1) If you are clear I will be able to flow you. You will find it very difficult in Parli or PuFo to spread me out, but Policy or LD might need to slow down a bit. Please allow for pen time. Make sure your tags are clear. It's the debater's job to communicate arguments clearly. I know that sucks---I've been on the receiving end of enough "judge told me to make the argument I actually did make" decisions for three debate careers, but it's the only way we can play the game.

2) I will yell clear for clarity, loud for loudness. I will yell these many times if need be, because I do really want to understand you, but
if you persist, I won't keep yelling all round.

3) Please ignore my nonverbals. During debate rounds, I'm very focused on being as fair as I can to you, so my facial control goes out the window. My happy face doesn't mean you're winning, and my sad face doesn't mean you're losing. My lack of flowing may mean I'm confused, or it may mean I've already written enough of the argument to satisfy me.

Theory:

 Please be clear where your answers to theory are (on the counterinterp, on
the violation, etc.) and what their function is. The easiest way to
win my ballot here is to weigh your various theory arguments against
each other, and explain to me why this means you win. (I've judged
rounds where the debater explained to me afterwards why a five second
theory argument should've won them the round. The debater was right,
but the explanation in round to communicate that argument was
insufficient. )

I accept whatever arguments are presented to me. If those arguments
are not made, here is how I default:

1) I have a high, but not impossible, threshold for RVIs...in Parli. In LD, I defer to community norms.

2) Theory comes before pre-fiat comes before post-fiat

3) I default to a framework of competing interpretations. 

What arguments you should run in front of me:

Kritiks:
I really, really, really like the K, because I think it is an
incredibly valuable way to confront our most basic assumptions about
society. But I have also not debated for quite some time and my comprehension may not where it used to be.

Keep this in mind. K's are fantastic and cool and wonderful. BUT DO NOT RUN THEM
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM. The K works well when you understand not
only what the argument says but also why the argument explains why you
win the round. Yelling "they use biopower" is not enough; you need to
give me reasons why their use of biopower means I should vote against
them. Talk about role of the ballot, tell me why your alt solves, and
tell me why I should vote for you.

Extensions:
1) Extensions. I am not okay with shadow extensions. It's fine to say
"extend the Domalewski card" (I live for the day someone says that, by
the way), but do not use the next speech to explain how that card
interacts with an argument your opponent made. I will not allow
"extend x" in one speech to become magically explained in a later speech.

Speaks:
My range is from 27-30. 28 is average, 27 is below average, 26 and
below is probably racist. 28.5 is above average, 29 is "you will
probably clear", and 29.5-29.8 is "you are likely to win this
tournament." Anything above and I will be actively recruiting you to
join my future Presidential campaign, both because I am in awe of your
talents and terrified that if you do not join me you will destroy me.

I reward, in this order:
1. Good strategic choices. Do you have a crafty, strategic case? Do
you collapse to the right places throughout the round? Do you use your
opponent's mistakes against him/her? Do you see the outs your opponent
has, and shut them down?
2. Clarity. To quote my good friend Om Alladi, "structure is KEY. I
really like structured arguments. this does not mean subpoints etc.
but labelling of arguments. if you tag every argument with the
appropriate function, ie '1) not true- 2) alt causality 3) solvency
takeout' i will appreciate it immensely."
3. Innovation/cleverness. Running a weird interpretation or unique
contentions will earn you points. I like creativity.
4. These things will TANK your speaker points: rudeness, being mean to
novices, spreading out people who ask you to slow down, intentionally
being unclear, racist/sexist/homophobic language. Read the room: being
aggressive and dominant is fine against a debater that is equal to
you in skill, but comes off as bullying to someone who is less
experienced.

I've been in debate for a little over a decade now as a high school policy debater, coach for numerous teams across multiple events, as well as professionally at the Bay Area Urban Debate League. Essentially, do what you want. Debate is a unique educational and competitive space, please make the most of it. I will vote on most things if you give me a good enough reason. I do not lean towards traditional or K/performative debate. Both are good and valuable. Again, do what you want. Have fun. Be nice to each other.

Go ahead and add me to whatever email chain: gabriel.gangoso@gmail.com

Flex prep is fine. In's and Out's are fine. Any other practices like this are probably fine. If you don't recognize these terms don't worry about them.

I'm open to most arguments as long as they're run well. I'm not the biggest fan of high theory philosophy like Baudrillard but will hear it out and judge fairly. Just don't be surprised to see me roll my eyes a little once I hear it. I was policy mainly during the beginning of my debate career before switching to K's including K affs and performance K's so I'm comfortable and enjoy those arguments. I don't like spreading as I think it makes debate inaccessible to a lot of ppl but I am sympathetic to the fact that you have a lot of cards to read. Just if someone, including me, asks to slow down, slow down or I will dock you points. Spread your cards not your analytics. Any other questions, feel free to ask me

email chain: hillweld32@gmail.com
tl;dr - an argument is a claim+warrant+impact, do your thing and I'll evaluate the debate accordingly

I have debated (and listened to) some of the fastest debaters in the country, and I'm pretty comfortable flowing them. But unless you have the ability to be just as clear as they are, don't sacrifice your clarity to read 50 cards in your 1AC at a nice high pitched humming sound that no one understands. I'll give you two warnings if you're not being clear. Keep your speeches organized, line by line and signposting are important.

T - I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise, and you should impact out why your model for evaluating topicality is good. The same goes for the competing interpretations debate; it's not good enough to say that your interpretation has better/different limits than theirs, I want to know why that's important.

Disads - they're cool. I prefer specific links (specific disads are even better) rather than generic ones, and it will also make your life easier. Impact calculus is very important, but you also have to make sure you win the internal link chain to get you to the impact in the first place. I'll default to utilitarianism (whatever you tell me it means) unless told otherwise but am quite open to other frameworks for evaluating the impact debate.

Counterplans - PICs are cool, case-specific CPs are cool. It's important that you're actually competitive and that you're not placing an unfair burden (whatever that means) on the affirmative.

Theory - Use it strategically, and if one team is clearly making the debate unfair and you can impact out why I should actually care about it, that's when you'll win your theory debate.

Kritiks - Do your thing. Explain the link (ideally it's specific or at least articulated in the context of the aff) and impact it out. Even if your alternative is to reject the team I need to know why I should endorse it as a method to combat whatever impact you present. This is what I've spent the most time thinking about, but I wont be doing any extra work for you.

Framework - I really enjoy K debates but this includes a defense of your framework for the round, whether it's a question of alt solvency or state engagement or whatever, impact it out.

K Affs/Planless Affs - The same way it is with everything else, explain your argument and why I should care about it. I'm open to critiques of engagement practices, the resolution, the debate community, or whatever else you can come up with.

Framework v. K Affs - I'll default to competing interpretations, but the same stuff I said about topicality applies here. These debates will most likely include some question about the pedagogical value of the 1AC and I think that a good explanation of why they create better education (or don't) can be extremely strategic for the aff. Similarly, a role of the ballot is an impact framing argument, the 2NR/2AR isn't going to be able to win on "they dropped the role of the ballot." If you win your impact framing, do your impact calculus.

I will actively listen and work hard to develop my understanding of your arguments as the debate progresses regardless of whether or not I am familiar with your style of debating or type of argument.

I'll start with a little background on me. I was a policy debater for 4 years at College Prep. I went to the ToC twice, with 3 bids and a 4-3 record my senior year. As a debater, I made a huge variety of different arguments, some very critical (Piratical Pedagogy), some very policy (Process CPs). I am currently studying computer science and mathematics at Harvey Mudd College.

In general, I'm a fan of explicit line-by-line debate, and muddling up my flow with implied clash will not help you win. I will try to reward depth of explanation and strong comparative impact work.

Things I default to, but can be persuaded otherwise: offense-defense, utilitarianism, functional competition, competing interpretations, conditionality.

Case - I love good case debate. Internal link chains in policy debate are usually terrible, but too often they go unquestioned. I'm not afraid to vote on a good case turn and some really strong internal link defense.

DA - Case outweighs is the Aff's best argument against every DA. These debates are usually decided by whoever does the best comparitive impact calculus.

CP - Presumption flips Aff when the Neg goes for a CP, so make sure you have a clear, independent net benefit. Functional competition, not potential abuse, is the best argument against an abusive CP.

K - I like critical arguments, but I think that too often debaters just spew jargon instead of actually explaining what they're talking about. Warrant your claims, use historical examples, really explain what your kritik means, and you'll probably win--don't, and you'll probably lose.

K Affs - I ran a lot of these, and I'm totally fine with them, but I'm also not afraid to vote on framework if the Aff doesn't have a good defense of why they get to do what they do. On the framework debate, I am slightly more likely to vote on an out-of-debate impact like political change or democratic engagement than an in-debate impact like equitable ground or inclusivity.

T - I can be persuaded otherwise, but by default, I will first decide on which interpretation won, then determine whether the Aff meets that interpretation; that means that "we meet" is offense, not defense. I haven't been following the current topic very closely, so I'm not going to know if you're telling the truth if you say something like "there are only three viable Affs on this topic, and this is one of them!", so you're going to need to explain any claims about the nature of the topic.

Theory - Debate is a game; that being said, fairness is an internal link, not an impact. If you want to be able to go for a theory argument in the last speech, it has to be more than a one-sentence blip before that.

Finally, please be civil both to your fellow debaters and to me. That means don't insult anyone, and don't disrupt my judging (stealing my ballot, for example).

I was a policy debater at Harker from 2012-2017 and now coach there. I primarily read policy-leaning arguments, and most of my 2NRs consisted of a DA/case, DA/CP, or Topicality. I now primarily judge and coach LD: I would most prefer to judge LARP debates. I would least prefer to judge tricks/theory debates. If you read tricks, phil, ridiculous/frivolous theory, or Ks with "B" letter authors, you will likely lose. RVIs are not a thing.

If you're doing an email chain, I'd like to be on it: anikaluvsla@gmail.com

In broad terms, I'd appreciate if you could use the most warrants and do the most comparisons that you think you need to in order to win. I evaluate arguments by thinking about their relative risk, but don't know if "zero risk" is as much a thing as people say in debates. Your arguments must consist of a claim, warrant, and impact - I will not read your evidence to construct the latter 2 parts of this for you.

CP: with specific solvency advocates are the best; otherwise, are still good. as a longtime 2a, probably lean aff on cp theory but can surely be persuaded otherwise.

DA: good. politics too.

Topicality: enjoyable when there is clear and specific clash, not enjoyable if extremely generic or out of context violations. case lists and impact comparisons are important. don't really want to see your pre written Nebel 2nr

Kritiks: enjoy these when there is a clearly articulated and specific link, not a random set of cards you read in every debate. i am more familiar with kritiks of security, capitalism, etc., and enjoy when the neg can point to specific things regarding the affirmative rather than blanket statements. I also enjoy the use of historical examples and well thought out impacts in these debates. The alt is very important. I am not inclined to voting on a K without a clear explanation of the alt. not interested in arguments that rely on the idea that death is good, not real, or anything similar to that.

Planless Affs: I went for framework against every planless aff I ever debated: do with that information what you will. topical version of the aff will compose a significant part of my decision in these debates, though I've come to think it's not necessary. I also do not think it necessarily would have to solve the aff.

Theory: I probably have some predispositions but will try my best to put them aside when I judge your debate. Especially in LD, I have a low threshold for what I consider a dumb argument (read: rvi, spec, afc), and I don't particularly want to judge a debate where you throw out a bunch of random shells and see what sticks.

Speaker Points: I'm a pretty sarcastic person, so I appreciate some of that and humor (while still maintaining respect). Be nice but bold, and use CX well. If you are not clear and I do not hear an argument then that is on you: be clear enough to convey the arguments you want to win on. I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with lots of CX/prep spent asking your opponent to list all the arguments they made, or waiting forever for a marked copy so you can see what cards they skipped- you should be flowing.

Experience : Ex-Debater at CPS, 3x Tournament of Champions Qualifier, Sophomore at Harvard
Speaker Position : Have done all of them
Email : ryanjiang98@gmail.com

2017 Update:
Stanford will be the first tournament I'm judging for the education topic. Still pretty up-to-date on current events, but probably not about the current 'meta' in debate, i.e. which affs are considered topical or not. Everything below still applies.

2016 Update:
I haven't judged any debates on the China topic yet, so you should debate in front of me assuming I know nothing about the current policy debate meta/best arguments on the topic. I'm pretty up to date on current events and have a pretty solid cultural/historical understanding of current dynamics with China and East Asia, but don't take that for granted.
That will also implicate topicality for me - I have zero idea of what affirmatives are generally considered topical by the community, so that will have literally no impact on how I evaluate the debate.

Overall Wiki:
I'll try to be as objective as possible when evaluating arguments, and give each argument equal credence. Of course, a caveat is that if you say openly absurd or offensive statements, especially ad-hominem attacks on the other team, I will be inclined to not only openly dismiss those arguments but also wreck your speaker points.

Couple of pre-dispositions, I guess :

Cheap-shots are great. If they drop conditionality they drop conditionality. Don't make things more complicated than they are. As a judge, I will look for easy way outs. That said, if you are completely crushing a team on every flow and choose to go for a dumb theory arg, that will reflect poorly on your ethos, etc.

Role of the ballot is to tell the Tabroom who won the debate. Any arbitrary statements about the role of the ballot without warrants (i.e. the role of the ballot is to determine the best strategy towards X) is exactly that -- arbitrary, and I won't find it particularly persuasive without more explanation. However, if the other team does drop the role of the ballot, that's often an easy and clean way to deal with impact debates, which are normally pretty messy when it's a K versus a policy impact. More on this later.

I'll decide on the flow. Style points if you can be self-aware of the credibility of your arguments but crush the other team.

Be funny, being entertaining is always great if its not cringe-worthy or at the expense of quality debating.

Framing issues / Impact Calc :

General statements : in the second rebuttals, it is your job to write my ballot. If you can win the debate in the first 30 seconds to a minute, and successfully do so, you will earn respect from me.

K on K violence - I think role of the judge arguments or defenses of debate as a unique pedagogical institution are particularly convincing strategies. I want to know why I matter because half the time a ballot does not change anything and everyone knows it. These are more persuasive to me than role of the ballot arguments because if you position the judge as an educator / policymaker, I can change up the thought calculus. Role of the ballot arguments are tautological in that they don't change how I evaluate the flow and when teams blanket assert that the role of the ballot argument wins them the debate it only ends up muddling my thought process.

K vs policy - this is usually the trickiest to evaluate. K teams must work hard to tell me why VTL claims outweigh utilitarian framing, or why root cause is more important than proximate cause, etc. I tend to default towards lives saved and timeframe - the "try-or-die" framing most policy teams go for is sadly pretty persuasive.

Policy on Policy - this is straightforward. Don't try to win that your impact outweighs on timeframe AND magnitude AND probability. That's a giant lie. Tell me which one of those three you win, tell me why that matters. I love smart turns case/disad arguments, especially on the level of internal links.

Specific Args :

Counterplans: be abusive, be tricky, solve the case. That's what they're for. But if you're affirmative, call them out. Chances are, the neg is being pretty abusive and if you do a fairly decent job on the theory debate you should be okay. Tell me how to weigh the risk of a solvency deficit versus the net benefit.

I'm undecided on conditionality. If you actually do a decent job debating it out and not just reading blocks back and forth, I will be willing to vote on either side. Theory is a question of competing interpretations unless you drop reasonability.

Disads: Yup.

Case Debate: The aff is terrible. Point that out. Winning a minimal risk of case is often one of the best strategies to win the debate, regardless of what you're going for. This part of the debate is underutilized and is often reduced to nothing other than impact defense.

Topicality: Have good interpretations, and debate out the impacts.

Kritiks: Don't just throw 50 buzzwords at me in 1 minute and expect that to mean anything. I care about quality of analysis more than cheap-shots. I love anything from high-theory to race/feminism/identity args. If you do it well you don't have to worry about me.

Framework: I think the game is pretty rigged against the neg, but if the negative does a good job I will vote for it. As someone who has read a K aff all year, I will expect your warrants to be well fleshed out and impacted, and I won't let you get away with reading a K aff just because I did it too. You're "cheating" -- tell me why that doesn't matter / their definition of cheating is bad.

Overview:

Y'all know me, still the same O.G. but I been low-key
Hated on by most these nigg@s with no cheese, no deals and no G's
No wheels and no keys, no boats, no snowmobiles, and no skis
Mad at me cause I can finally afford to provide my family with groceries
Got a crib with a studio and it's all full of tracks to add to the wall
Full of plaques, hanging up in the office in back of my house like trophies
Did y'all think I'mma let my dough freeze, ho please
You better bow down on both knees, who you think taught you to smoke trees
Who you think brought you the oldies
Eazy-E's, Ice Cubes, and D.O.C's
The Snoop D-O-double-G's
And the group that said motherduck the police
Gave you a tape full of dope beats
To bump when you stroll through in your hood
And when your album sales wasn't doing too good
Who's the Doctor they told you to go see
Y'all better listen up closely, all you nigg@s that said that I turned pop
Or The Firm flopped, y'all are the reason that Dre ain't been getting no sleep
So duck y'all, all of y'all, if y'all don't like me, blow me
Y'all are gonna keep ducking around with me and turn me back to the old me

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say
But nothing comes out when they move their lips
Just a bunch of gibberish
And motherduckers act like they forgot about Dre

Line-by-line

Semi-retired from the policy debate world few years back, but I am around for 4 years during my daughter’s high school policy debate career. Maybe another 4 after that for my son’s. Maybe even longer if they decide to debate in college. “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!”

Experienced former circuit debater from the Bay Area. Previous coach in Sacramento for CK McClatchy, Rosemont, Davis Senior, and others. Also coached several Bay Area programs. I am the former Executive Director and founder of the Sacramento Urban Debate League (SUDL). I spent the better part of a decade running SUDL while personally coaching several schools. I've judged a ton of rounds on all levels of policy debate and feel in-depth and informative verbal RFD's are key to debate education.

I will adapt to you rather than you to me. It's not my place as a judge to exclude or marginalize any sort of argument or framework. On the neg, I will vote for K/K + case, T, CP + DA, DA + case, FW/FW + case, performance, theory.... whatever. I personally prefer hearing a good K or theory debate, not that I'm more inclined to vote on those genres of argumentation. I am down for the K, performance, or topical aff. Anything goes with me.

I'm big on organization. Hit the line by line hard. Don't just give me 3 min overviews or read a bunch of cards off the line, then expect me to conveniently find the best place on the flow for you. Do the work for me. I flow on paper OG style, so don't drop arguments. I don't flow off speech docs (neither should you), but put me on the email chain so I can read cards along with you and refer back to them. I can handle any level of speed, but please be as clear and loud as possible.

I will work hard to make the debate accessible and a safe place for you and your arguments. If you have access needs during a debate, wish to inform me of your preferred gender pronoun, or if there is anything you wish to communicate privately, please let me know or send me an email. markcorp2004@msn.com

My judging philosophy is very short for a reason. Its your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote. Write my ballot for me in your 2NR/2AR.

St. Vincent de Paul ‘16

I like to be on the email chain :)- sara21parks@gmail.com

* NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS YEARS TOPIC*

Most important thing is be nice and have fun.

I debated policy for four years at St. Vincent de Paul, I was more on the kritikal side reading a lot of Fem on the AFF.

Overall: I was a 1A. I don't know a lot about the resolution this year, so you can totally shape how I view the resolution. But, don’t leave me in the dust; you’re going to have to do some extra explaining. I am not a judge that will do any work for you. Explain every link, impact, interpretation, ect.

Speed: It’s cool with me

Kritiks: I was introduced to Kritiks early on in my debate career and I like them a lot. All my affirmatives were k-affs and our 1NCs were always kritik. However don’t assume I’ve read of bunch of K literature. Explain you’re argument and explain your link. Don’t hide behind big words and power tags. Will vote on a K, but you must explain it clearly throughout the debate.

Framework: I don't believe fw should be the go-to strategy against K-Affs.By all means, include it in the 1NC to figure out ground and the boundaries of the aff. If the aff is abusive and you honestly think it should be excluded from the debate space, go for it. Paint the picture of a world of your Framework and which affirmatives should be included/ excluded.

Case: I think people completely undervalue the case debate. Spend more time on this, it'll help both sides in cross applications onto off-case arguments. Case clash is rad, Case Turns are also cool.

Disads/Counterplans: Run them, but be clear. They get super technical and so make sure you explain everything, don’t assume I know what’s going on in the world. Make sure they apply to the aff and you have good evidence. Don’t forget the perm. I'm open to all Counterplans and Disads.

Topicality: This can be helpful in policy and kritikal debates.. I default to counter interpretations so make sure your interpretation is damn good if you decide to go for it. More importantly, prove that the other team's interpretation is worse. What would the resolution look like under their interpretation compared to yours? Make sure to explain the impacts.

Theory: Read it when applicable, DONT BE CRAZY. If the argument is farfetched I’m probably not going to vote for it. But if someone is running a bunch of conditional advocacies, you should run condo. Edit you’re blocks for the round, otherwise my flow just becomes a cluster of irrelevant arguments.

I mainly stick to the policy side of debate and you see me in the judge pool for a PF tournament just know that you are running the show. Meaning you are doing a lot of explanation on your side making sure I know what your talking about. I am not familiar with PF.

POLICY Paradigm:

I'm Juan Carlos, a Political Scientist with a Master's in Economics and Business. My primary areas of expertise revolve around comparative politics, international relations, and macroeconomics, with a particular focus on the Iberian Peninsula and Latin America. I have conducted research in Spain, Portugal, and Mexico, and my current research projects are centered on post-industrial economies and the triggers of regime change in Latin America.

In the context of policy debate, I encourage the concept of CLASH, emphasizing the quality of arguments presented by both sides. Any argument is acceptable as long as it directly relates to the central theme of the debate. If you intend to introduce theory or debate multiple scenarios, it is essential to streamline your main arguments early in the debate. While speed is permitted, it should not come at the cost of clarity; you must thoroughly explain your arguments, and I will not vote for a one-liner that you breeze through in a matter of seconds.

Framework: When advocating for a particular framework in your debate, you should provide a comprehensive analysis of why your chosen framework offers a better option for policy debate. I do not appreciate framework arguments used solely to consume time or run multiple off-cases without a strong rationale; I rarely find such strategies convincing.

Kritiks: I am open to voting on Kritiks, but I expect a thorough impact analysis and a clear explanation of the alternative proposed by the Kritik.

On the Negative side, I anticipate a careful analysis of the "K," including an impact calculation. On the Affirmative side, I expect you to use your Affirmative case effectively and construct a robust framework argument in support of policy-making.

Counterplans/Permutations/Disadvantages: When presenting counterplans, I expect to see a competing counterplan with a detailed breakdown of the net benefits. I also anticipate a well-articulated disadvantage (DA) that doesn't get triggered by the counterplan. I have never voted for a counterplan presented in isolation. If the Negative team can demonstrate that the Affirmative case worsens the status quo, causing the DA, I appreciate well-argued internal links. While I am generally not a fan of broad, general DAs, a strong discourse on such a DA can change my perspective.

Cons:

• Rude debaters: Maintain decorum and respect during the debate.
• If going paperless, avoid excessive time consumption on flashing; make it quick and efficient.
• Always flow the debate, as not doing so will negatively impact your speaker points.

Pros:

• Display sportsmanship throughout the debate.
• Come well-prepared with your arguments and research.
• Incorporate a sense of humor when appropriate to foster a positive debating atmosphere.

PUBLIC FORUM Paradigm:

Debate Philosophy: In public forum, I prioritize clarity, accessibility, and the ability to engage the audience, as these are crucial elements of this style of debate. Public forum should be an accessible forum for debaters to engage in discussions about current events and policy issues.

Clarity and Accessibility: I place a high value on clarity in public forum debates. Debaters should be able to explain complex concepts in a way that is understandable to a general audience. Speak clearly, avoid excessive jargon, and make sure that your arguments are easily accessible to both the judge and any potential audience members who might not be familiar with debate terminology.

Content Quality: Quality over quantity. In public forum, I value well-reasoned, well-evidenced arguments over a barrage of content. Debaters should focus on a limited number of key arguments and provide strong evidence to support their claims. Less is often more in this format.

Crossfire: Crossfire can be a valuable part of public forum debates. I encourage debaters to use crossfire to clarify, challenge, and engage with their opponents' arguments. However, I expect crossfire to be conducted with respect and professionalism.

Summary and Final Focus: The summary and final focus speeches are critical in public forum. These speeches should provide clear overviews of the key arguments, voters, and weighing mechanisms in the round. These speeches should not introduce new arguments but should crystallize the debate and explain why your side should win.

Use of Evidence: Use evidence to support your arguments, but make sure the evidence is relevant, credible, and contextualized within the context of the debate. Evidence should be cited clearly, and it should be used to strengthen your claims, not overwhelm your opponents with sheer quantity.

Impact Analysis: Debaters should clearly articulate the impacts of their arguments and why they should matter to the judge and the audience. It's not just about presenting arguments; it's about explaining why those arguments are significant in the context of the resolution.

Framework and Fair Play: Public forum is typically a more accessible form of debate, and I appreciate debaters who maintain a fair and balanced approach to the debate. Playing by the rules, respecting time limits, and adhering to the format is essential.

Cons:

• Rude or disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated.
• Avoid excessive use of jargon and complex terminology that may alienate general audiences.
• Disregarding time limits or rules can negatively affect your speaker points.

Pros:

• Maintain sportsmanship and professionalism throughout the debate.
• Come prepared with a thorough understanding of the topic and strong arguments.
• Foster a positive and engaging atmosphere by using persuasive speaking skills.
• Adapt your style and arguments to the audience, ensuring accessibility and engagement.

Judge philosophies.wikispaces.com/Santos%2C+Alan