Saenz,Ricardo

Ricardo Saenz Freshman at Georgia Tech Debated at Alpharetta High School - 4 years toc

last updated 9/9 2011 =TLDR=


 * On the space topic, I worked for the Georgetown Debate Seminar and Spartan Debate Institute. I judged about 10-20 debates on the topic.
 * Go as fast as you want - just make sure it is clear
 * Any 2NR strategy is fine - make sure it is complete (dont just go for a DA)
 * Framework alone is never a reason to vote aff or neg - it needs to be supplemented with some piece of offense that is accessed in that framework
 * Counterplans - competitive counterplans are probably fine; artificially competitive counterplans need to be topic relevant
 * Debate is supposed to be a fun activity - being rude takes the fun out of the activity
 * Offense - Defense is not set in stone - I can be convinced to evaluate through another focus
 * Questions of fairness are usually determine by what is in the literature for both sides

=Argument by Argument=

Affirmatives
You should have a plan text that makes sense in terms of doing an action that is supported by your solvency advocate. If your main solvency advocate calls for a more specific action such as a branch of government or specific agency doing the plan (e.g - your card says the DOD should do the plan) but you specify the USFG, I think that agent counterplans become fair game because they are in the literature.

Affirmatives should be constructed in terms of what they are able to truly solve instead of advantages. At the camps, I continuously see debaters racing to find internal links to their warming and hegemony advantages rather than defending the strong internal link to smaller advantages such as regional wars or specific innovations.

Disadvantages
They need to be a complete argument - reading a disadvantage that has no link or skipping an internal link greatly reduces the risk of the disadvantages.

There is such thing as zero percent risk of a disadvantage and I am more than willing to vote on that argument if it is executed well by the affirmative.

Counterplans
While I think that the scope of negative fiat has gotten out of hand, I also think 2As have been partially at fault for this due to a fear of going for theory. If a counterplan seems illegitimate, you should be able to beat it on theory rather than racing to silly substance. This does not mean going for "X" counterplan is bad for fairness and education. You can also win that competition questions mean that the counterplan is not an opportunity cost to the affirmative and should not be evaluated meaning the net benefit is also irrelevant.

As for listing counterplans
 * States - doesnt make sense on this topic but probably bad
 * International - indifferent - can go either way
 * PICs - specific = ok; generic = indifferent
 * Conditions = probably bad unless topic relevant/specific
 * Consult = bad
 * Advantage CPs - legitimate
 * Topical CPs - legitimate - need a strong net benefit
 * Private Actor - indifferent

Kritiks
I am pretty familiar with a few kritiks and am happy to hear a good K debate. I feel like these debates get lost into framework rather than the substance of the K and the affirmative ends up losing more rounds than they should because they forget about their affirmative and get stuck into needing to answer every cheap shot that is presented. A few notes when debating or going for the K in front of me.
 * Cheap shots need to be explained and impacted well. "They dropped the floating pic" wont be enough analysis even if it was conceded. You need to contextualize that in terms of what it means with the affirmative and how much of it I might weigh because of the concession.
 * The permutation is perhaps the most powerful argument in the affirmative arsenal - a 2a that takes time to read the alternative evidence to see what it really calls for past the "alt text" and spots a prescriptive action will be able to win a strong permutation. This means 2As will need to deviate from the usual Perm do the Alt and Perm do both. Instead, their text should incorporate some of the language of the alternative evidence or some action called by the alternative such as perm do the plan and embrace constructivism. This is not intrinsic because it is part of the alternative evidence and if the aff is held to every word in the 1ac, the negative should be held to every word in their evidence.
 * Case arguments are great when going for the K - your one sheet of paper wont be able to mitigate all of the case - having some impact D along with your ethics disad on the K can make for an easy neg ballot.

Topicality
Unless its a ridiculous interpretation - I default competing interpretations. Negatives need to impact their standards in terms of why the inclusion of the affirmative or type of affirmative is detrimental to the topic.

ASPEC is only a credible argument if the 2AC does a terrible job of answering it

performance/non traditional
I am not too familiar with judging these types of debates. I feel like you need to at least be topic relevant in order to win that you are attempting to affirm the resolution. The negative should at least be allowed to run intrinsic disadvantages to the topic against your affirmative.

=A few other notes=

Paperless

 * Prep time stops as soon as the flash drive leaves the computer
 * It is not the speaking team's responsibility to point out every card read or not read in the speech document
 * A marked version of the speech should be flashed to the opponent if the debater marked cards before the end

Stylistic Notes

 * Dont steal prep - if I see a partner appearing to prep after the time has stopped, I will deduct prep time and inform you of it.
 * Cheating is bad - if I catch team card clipping, I will intervene and vote that team down
 * Cross-x is about questioning validity of evidence rather than making the other team look bad
 * I will deduct speaker points if I find you overly rude to your partner or the other team. This activity is about having fun - acting like a jerk to gain a competitive advantage suck all the fun out.
 * The debate happens in a vacuum - other teams' competitive success with an argument wont convince me that a certain aff is fair ground or not. What other teams have historically ran should also not be taken into account when making a decision.

Other

 * Morals still matter - racism good/genocide good etc... are probably not good arguments to make in front of me