Segura,+Pedro

4 years of CX at Hendrickson, 3 years of CX at UT-Austin.

updated for TFA state 2016:

**Stylistic Issues (Speed, Quantity)** Pls slow down in theory debates to give me pen/keyboard time. Speed = arguments communicated per second.   **Speaker Point Scale** 28.5 is generally my middle ground, and I tend not to go below 27 without an urgent reason (hostile, rude, offensive stuff) or above a 29.5.   **Theory (Aff/Neg)** See Topicality for the way I think about theory debates broadly; theory is generally a reason to reject the argument, not necessarily the team.

  **Topicality** I tend to think of these as DA/CP debates, so that means I appreciate clear and warranted link/internal-link/impact explanation. Impact comparison is important (education v fairness, skillz v the k of t, etc), but I think it also needs to be specific. For example, "education," or even "topic education" are not impacts alone -- topics and learning are dynamic and multifaceted and pulling out that specificity is not just more interesting to judge, it's more strategic for you.

Like DA's, I will vote on zero percent risk -- meaning if I'm unclear on what your interpretation means or how the aff violates it, I have no problem checking out on a logical we meet argument.   **Counterplans** I love well-researched and specific CP/DA debates. All else equal, I tend to lean aff on the theoretical legitimacy of CP's that "compete" based on certainty/immediacy or are otherwise wholly plan-inclusive (eg consult cp's, conditions cp's etc). My default is to not judge kick a cp for you unless I'm given a good reason to do so.   **Disadvantages** These are fun. As always, specificity of links is important. I think often times internal links are underdebated, and impact debates devolve into competing assertions without warrants. Be better on either of these and you'll be in good shape.

I'll probably have a high-ish standard for evidence quality in these debates, especially re: link and internal link ev. Zero percent risk is possible.   **Kritiks**

I like these arguments, "Role of the ballot" is glorified impact calculus and your opponent 'conceding' it won't win you the debate alone. If I don't know what it means or how I should use it to make a decision then it's not helpful for you. Instead, I'd prefer clear impact comparison and/or explicit, warranted sequencing arguments. Similarly, I'm generally not persuaded by starting point/omission/"comission" type links without a warranted explanation for why they matter. That also means competition matters to me -- theoretical objections to permutations because "it's a method debate" are unpersuasive, but not un-winnable, as a catchphrase without specific analysis.   **Performance/Projects** Do what you do; I think all my stuff above applies here too.   <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif'; font-size: x-small;">**Additional Comments** Prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer.