Pereira,+Guillermo

I debated at Broad Run High School for three years (2010-2013) and am currently in my freshman year of college debating at James Madison University (01/22/2014).

Some things to know about me-- 1. I don't like gendered language. I'm more likely to believe a kritik of the word "guys" than not. I personally don't think the F word is gendered, but can be persuaded otherwise. If it starts to really matter in the debate, expect your speaks to plummet. 2. Impact calculus is incredibly important to me. If I don't know how to weigh the impacts in the round, I'll probably default to reading your impact cards and voting for whichever team has the better card. This being said, I hardcore believe in the offense/defense paradigm. It's probably possible to win my ballot on terminal defense, but it's so incredibly difficult to do so. 3. A dropped argument is a true argument, but if you don't impact it out, I won't vote on it. I once judged a debate where the 1AR completely dropped a disad, but the 2NR didn't even extend an impact, so I voted aff on case outweighs. 4. If an argument is dropped, I have a lower threshold for good impact calculus/extension of the argument. 5. People refer to me as more of a policy debater, but do not let that deter you from running kritiks. I will vote on any argument as long as it's explained and impacted properly. I am decently familiar with lit regarding feminism, Butler, and basic kritiks like capitalism and security. I can't understand Lacan or Nietzsche for my life. That being said, I believe that it is my job as a judge to adjudicate to the best of my ability based on the arguments run in the debate. If Lacan is your thing, go for it, and I will do my best to understand what you are saying. Just know you're going to have to explain the argument pretty well. 6. I've recently started to feel more persuaded by framework. All that should mean for you is that I ideologically fall on the side of agreeing that topical affs are good for debate. I'm still down with you impact turning framework/education coming first, but I personally believe fairness is pretty important (as with most of the rest of my philosophy, I can be persuaded to think otherwise). I also think topical version is incredibly important and, if done correctly, should be used to hedge against most of the offense against framework. 7. I look at theory like a disad-- the standards are the impacts. You should do impact calculus with the standards. However, most of the time, I think that theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team (although this obviously doesn't apply to condo), but can be persuaded otherwise. 8. I will vote on cheapshots if they're impacted properly. I don't like voting on presumption, and I generally think it's asinine, but if you win it, I will vote on it (see previous comment about offense/defense paradigm). 9. I am very flowcentric. This is probably the only place that I'll intervene. Do not ask me to not flow, because I probably won't listen to you. Please do line-by-line. If you don't, I'll be frustrated. 10. I'll laugh at jokes made in the debate, and generally have a higher threshold for meanness in cross-x than a lot of people do. That being said, don't be an asshole. I will award up to half an extra speaker point for jokes (if they're good).

Ultimately, remember that you are the debaters and that I will listen to any argument. Do sufficient impact calculus and you'll probably win my ballot.

Some short notes/thoughts on speaker points-- 30-- Seriously, it's impossible for you to have been better. Holy crap you're amazing. I'm definitely going to try to recruit you to come debate at JMU (although I may try to recruit if I award lower speaker points too) 29.5-- Top 5 speakers worthy 29-- Really great job. Top 5-10 speaker worthy 28.5-- Definitely deserve to clear, probably a middle of the bracket team 28-- Great job, but some structural issues that need to be hashed out 27.5-- Good, but needs to be better. 27-- You're okay 26.5-- Serious structural issues 26 (or less)-- I'm frustrated with you and you have serious structural issues. I will award 25s or less for people being offensive (see gendered language comment; otherwise any offensive language. Curse words don't necessarily count as offensive language).

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the debate begins. I'm also happy to answer any questions about the debate after it occurs.