Background

My name is Leslie De La Cruz Martinez. I’m a first-year student majoring in Philosophy, Politics, Law & Economics (PPLE) at IE University. I debated Public Forum for four years at New Horizons Bilingual School in the Dominican Republic. I've also coached for international and national debate tournaments. As a college student, I now debate British Parliamentary style, participate actively in MUNs and write weekly in The Stork newspaper.

FYI Before the Round

I value intelligence, confidence, proper body language, and a good tone in a debater. Show me your logical and analytical skills, and don't try to play it smart by altering evidence. I know the topic by heart, every round is your opportunity to demonstrate how your arguments connect validly to the resolution. I flow all speeches during the round, except crossfires, however, I do take them into account, and if you do make a fire point, I'll write it down. Lastly, be on time!

During the Round

I. I'll be taking your time, but please do so as well.

II. Make eye contact, at least every 20-45 seconds. Don’t just read your case, show me you know what you are talking about. Show me your strengthens and proper strategies through linking, weighing, and extending.

III. Road Maps are helpful.

IV. Impact Calculus (Probability, Magnitude, Scope, Timeframe, Reversibility) and Tag Lines are a MUST.

V. Be respectful during all crossfires and remain calm. Allow for both sides to make and answer questions. In the grand cross, all debaters should participate.

VI. Fast speed and a loud tone preferred. Clearness is nonnegotiable. Make sure you slow down and emphasize when providing any type of evidence (statistics, dates, reports, reliable/credible sources) or examples. If you speak slowly, make sure your volume is appropriate.

VII. It's good to present a Framework. If you don’t have one I’ll focus on the present standards during the around and the evidence presented in support of every argument. In the case, that you don't have one and the opposing team does, you must communicate your stand and/or suggest a framework. If you do have one, mention its significance throughout your speeches and demonstrate how it is fair for both teams in the round.

VIII. Any argument you present must be supported with relevant and credible evidence. I don't judge based on my beliefs or opinions, I'll stick to the arguments presented and the clash of ideas during the debate. It is crucial to counter the opposing team's contentions and premises.

IX. If you have a unique argument, don’t be afraid to run it, show me everything you’ve got. Any argument you presented that is not counterargued during the round, defended and well-presented won't be considered.

X. Have your evidence at hand, so the round can run smoothly and quickly. EVERYTHING you say during your speech (example: qualitative or quantitative data, important dates, or relevant examples) must be backed up by evidence. The evidence must be adequately warranted. Likewise, if the opposing team asks for evidence, I would like to see it as well.

XI. Speeches must be organized, leaving time in a speech or going over-time will affect your Speaker Points.

XII. If some of the arguments you presented were dropped, that's okay. Focus on boiling down your arguments and concisely explaining why and how you won the round.

XIII. Feel free to use any form of refutation and weighing you'd like. Reiterate the opposing team's arguments flaws and fallacies.

XIV. New arguments presented in summary or final focus won't be taken into account. Also, if standing arguments are not mentioned in summary nor final focus, I'll consider them dropped.

XV. Any doubts (questions) or attacks directed to your case by the opposing team must be responded with a defense. If you fail to do so and don't recover from it, you'll risk losing that argument.

XVI. Speaker Points:

30 - Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field. (A++)

29 - Your performance is substantially better than average. (A/A-)

28 - Your performance is above average. (B/B+)

27 - Your performance is approximately average. (B-)

26 - Your performance is below average.

25 - Your performance is substantially below average.

24 - Rude or inappropriate behavior, total lack of preparation.

Last, but not least important, be respectful (no discrimination, no insults), be professional, and be nice!

If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate on coming to me before the round starts I'll be more than happy to help. Best of Luck!

Arturo Féliz-Camilo

I studied and practice law, hold two law degrees and teach History. I'm familiar and like the economic/social/historical arguments. I've been coaching (mostly PF) since 2013 for New Horizons Bilingual School in the Dominican Republic.

I love debate, and the strategy game. I love to see a good clash of ideas and interesting/novel analysis. I'll buy any argument as long as you link, warrant, and support it with relevant evidence. Still, I think some arguments are just in bad taste. Allow me to further clarify this point. I am not going to buy any argument just because "there's a card". That's not enough for me. You have to persuade me, you have to warrant your claims.

I believe communication is key. If I can't understand it due to speed, I won't flow it. I won't ask you to slow down. I almost never intervene. Debate should not be about brute force your opponents into submission, but about a clash of ideas.

I really enjoy a civil CX. Ask for evidence if you must, but don't make the round an evidence match. If you call for evidence I hope you're planning to do something with it. I listen to CX but won't flow it. I'll note cool stuff in the hopes it makes it into your speech. I almost never review evidence, unless there's a claim by one of the teams, and then I must. I'll go with what's in my flow. I do admit that having the cases help me flow, but I mostly flow what you read.

It's ok to offer an off-time roadmap, just don't take a minute doing so. Quickly give it and move on. Don't ask. Just do it.

Once more. Explain, analyze, and warrant your case, don’t just read it. Weigh, impact, link, extend, boil down, crystallize. Feel free to sign-post/roadmap. Absent a framework and weighing I'll go with what stands in the end. Don't bring new arguments to summary. I won't flow them. Don't bring new arguments to final focus. I won't flow it.

I'm not in love with Ks or Theory. Run them at your own risk. I like to think that we should debate under the agreed upon rules. I will buy arguments on technical aspects of PF, as a matter of order and fairness. I think too many debaters are running disclosure in a dishonest way. All that said, I will buy anything that makes sense, including abusive behavior, bad faith misgendering, and anti-violence. I am not absolutely closed to theory, but I'll usually only buy it if it's run in good faith, and not as a strategy to win a round.

Pettiness will not win me over, but you gotta stand your ground. Sassiness is awesome, but the line between the two is just so thin. You want to win your round? Be smart, creative, fun, thoughtful, and strategic. Outweigh, outsmart, outperform, outclass your opponent.

If at the end of the round you want me to explain how I gave or not gave you the ballot, I will absolutely do it in good faith, but I will not debate you, or change my mind. Once I start disclosing, the ballot is already in, so trying to persuade me at that point is not productive.

Add me to your evidence chain arturo@arturofeliz.com

María Jimenez

I studied and practice law. I'm familiar and like the economic/social/historical arguments. I've been coaching PF since 2017 for New Horizons Bilingual School in the Dominican Republic.

I love debate, and the strategy game. I love to see a good clash of ideas and interesting/novel analysis. I'll buy any argument as long as you link, warrant, and support it with relevant evidence. Still, I think some arguments are just in bad taste.

I believe communication is key. If I can't understand it due to speed, I won't flow it. I won't ask you to slow down. I almost never intervene. Debate should not be about brute force your opponents into submission, but about a clash of ideas.

I really enjoy a civil CX. Ask for evidence if you must, but don't make the round an evidence match. If you call for evidence I hope you're planning to do something with it. I hear CX but won't flow it. I'll note cool stuff in the hopes it makes it into your speech.

Explain, analyze, and warrant your case, don’t just read it. Weigh, impact, link, extend, boil down, crystallize. Feel free to sign-post/roadmap. Absent a framework and weighing I'll go with what stands in the end.

I'm not in love with Ks or Theory. Run them at your own risk. I like to think that we should debate under the agreed upon rules. I will buy arguments on technical aspects of PF, as a matter of order and fairness. I think too many debaters are running disclosure in a dishonest way. All that said, I will buy anything that makes sense, including abusive behavior, bad faith misgendering, and anti-violence.

Pettiness will not win me over, but you gotta stand your ground. Sassiness is awesome, but the line between the two is just so thin.

You want to win your round? Be smart, creative, fun, thoughtful, and strategic. Outweigh, outsmart, outperform, outclass your opponent.

email: mariaalexandrajimenezcano@gmail.com