I've competed in high school parliamentary debate for 3 years, high school policy debate for 3 years, and NPDA in college for UCLA for 3 years. I'm relatively okay with spreading, but I will yell "clear" or "slower" if I need to… mostly because I want to hear your arguments! I have a relatively low threshold on theory, but you need to prove to me that there is in-round abuse. Also, if you're going to go for this in the rebuttal speeches, I need you to give me more than just a restatement of voters that you gave in your constructive speeches. Tell me why it matters! Kritiks are fine as long as you really understand them yourself to run them, and I prefer specific links to link of omissions and generic links. Lastly, impact framing is very important to me in the last two rebuttal speeches. Be comparative with both of the teams' impact scenarios. For example, if you're going to go for an extinction impact tell me why magnitude outweighs others and if you're going to go for a systemic impact tell me why timeframe + probability outweighs magnitude. If it's an extinction v. extinction scenario, don't talk about the magnitude and move on to tell me why your scenario has higher probability/faster timeframe. 

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

I am currently a Policy Debater and have judged numerous LD and parli debate rounds.  I will listen to any arguments you bring up as long as you can clearly explain and link it to the resolution.

Affirmative Case:

This is policy debate.  Have ALL the stock issues.  Include Harms/Significance, Inherency, and Solvency.  If you are going to run Topicality or Kritiks you need to fully explain them to me.  Do not assume I understand how these arguments relate to the debate.  Please note that I appreciate having substantive arguments.  They make debate have a greater purpose versus the technicalities of debate.

Negative Case:

Tell and Explain to me WHY the AFF case is bad.  Why does the AFF case fail?  How do you resolve the impacts?  If arguing topicality, PROVE it.  Explain it.  I need to know why the Aff is not being topical.  Use it as an offensive tool.

Cards / Warrants:

Be sure to have warrants for your arguments but do not simply use it to justify your point.  Have impact statements to accompany them as they are an indicator of your understanding of your arguments.  Explain them to me in detail so not only I as a judge understand them but your opponents understand them as well.

Clash:

Clash should start on the first cross-examination and continue throughout the entire debate.  Use it to your advantage.  Often, some of the best arguments are made during cross examination and they are the best opportunities to corner your opponents arguements.  When responding to the other's team arguements, please signpost which points you are addressing.  This helps me as I flow the debate and clarifies how your clashing arguments relate to the other team's.

Extending Arguments:

Also, make sure to extend your arguements throughout the debate.  Often, great points are brought up but easily lost throughout the course of the debate.  Extending arguments (or at least a rehash of them) reminds the judge that you are still advocating that argument.

Final Rebuttals:

Your final reputtal speeches should be primarily focused on voting issues.  WHY do you win this debate?  Don't simply repeat arguments made, but explain how these arguments should contribute to my decision to vote for you.

Paperless Debaters:

You should have a copy of your cards on a flashdrive that can easily be handed over to the other team.  If the other team does not have a laptop with them, you must provide a laptop for them to view your cards and analyze them.  This is to ensure that both teams have equal access to cards and to promote clash as that tends to formulate a good debate.

Speed:

I don't mind debaters speaking fast.  What I do mind is spreading at a point where you seem to have difficulty breathing.  That demonstrates nothing (especially argument wise) beside show me that you can mumble words and make yourself look uncomfortable.  I will NOT yell "Clear!"  Also, I will stop flowing once I cannot understand what you are saying.  It is your responsibility to look at me to see whether I am still flowing.

Have FUN!

It rhymes with SUN.  (I'm taking Astronomy in college . . . give me a break) ^_^