Garcia,+Juan


 * __Personal Info__ **

__Debated for__:  University of Missouri-Kansas City (2008-2013)  Highland Park [MN] (2004-2008)

__Work for__:  Emporia State University (2014-Present)  Wayzata High School (2013-Present)

Speaker Position while debating: 2N/1A

Aside from speaker points, everything i write below here is up for debate. If there is a predisposition I hold that you would prefer I didn’t, make the argument. These are merely general guidelines I use in the absence of argumentation and I will always defer to the debaters on how to interpret the debate so long as there is a warranted reason to do so. If you take away anything from this paradigm it should be this: tell me how to evaluate the impact of the arguments you are going for and winning versus everything else you might be losing. Being honest about where you are in the debate is tremendously helpful in the last two rebuttals. If you have any questions my email is: jgarcia1yh@gmail.com __Speaker Points__ There are 4 main criteria I used in determining speaker points: 1) Explanation of argument – While I regularly vote on dropped arguments and technical mistakes being made by one team, I still prefer you explain the warrants of your arguments and the impacts those arguments have. 2) Clash – While I don’t require debaters to follow a strict line-by-line format, I do prefer debaters refer to each other’s arguments once in a while. For example, I have decreased 1AR’s speaker points because in an attempt to use “embedded clash” they have just extended a bunch of 2AC arguments without much refutation of the negatives arguments. Similarly, I find it frustrating to hear a 2NR that involves several minutes of argument extension without mentioning aff arguments. 3) Clarity – I want to be able to understand all the words you are saying. Usually, clarity becomes an issue for me when debaters reading directly into a laptop screen, they are going too fast for me to flow them, or they are going too fast while not enunciating. Fluidity and flow of speech will not factor into my speaker point allocation. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">4) Cross-x – Asking a question repetitively for a few minutes, refusing to answer questions, and not letting your partner answer or ask questions are all easy ways to decrease your speaker points. Making questions specific and having follow up questions based upon their responses makes for a good cross-x and better speaker points. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">Very high speaker points (bordering a 29 and above) are usually given when a speaker has excelled in at least the first 3. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">NOTE: your tags must contain a full claim and at least some of a warrant. If you read a tag that is less than 3 words long chances are one of two things will happen <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;"> A) I’ll miss it – this makes it a waste of your time <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">B) I’ll notice it – this makes me upset that you’re not reading a full tag. I’ll decrease speaker points if you do this. This isn’t an efficiency competition.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">- Views on various arguments -

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">__Critiques:__ <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">I’ll list out what I prioritize during a critique debate – whether you’re answering one or going for one, this should provide direction on what to focus on: <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">1) Aff’s Case – I need the critique to somehow deal with the existence of case. This means that if you are going for one, either be well prepared to go for some case arguments or have a well-developed framework argument for why it shouldn’t factor in my decision. Against policy teams, a substantial number of my aff ballots on critiques involve an absence of case or framework and the affirmative usually outweighs the critique or implicates alternative solvency in some way. Similarly inherency argument (or uniqueness) can become problems if not well dealt with. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">2) Framework – Not always necessary but can easily sway my decision if used effectively. I find framework arguments useful to not just interpret impact statements but also solvency claims. This is also useful when the affirmative is also critical as it allows me to better compare different approaches. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">3) Impact comparison – Many critique debates that I have judged turn into two teams trying to solve the same impact. Having an external impact helps but at very least comparing the chance of resolving the impact between the aff and the neg is very useful. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">4) Alternative – if you do a well enough job on framework this portion of the debate can either not matter at all or become incredibly important in evaluating the debate. In debates involving complicated high-theory, it’s important to try and explain what my ballot means in simpler language than what your alternative evidence may be written in. If you can explain why it matters, your alt doesn’t need to “do stuff.”

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">__K Aff’s__ <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">A substantial number of aff’s I judge fall into this category. Here are some things to consider when you have me. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">1) Competition – I am open to multiple models of competition when a K aff is present. My only condition is that you actually present and defend how competition operates. My default is always that the aff gets a permutation unless an argument is made to the contrary. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">2) “Solvency” – Your aff doesn’t need to result in some instrumental change in policy or a massive social movement. However, I prefer the affirmative not just be a criticism of an existing problem. In a way, I’m asking for a “solvency mechanism” that can attempt to resolve the impacts in the 1AC. A well-developed “role of the ballot” (or similar arguments with different names) helps. This is especially important in debates where both teams are attempting to avoid the same impact. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">3) Framework interpretation – Have one. I usually resolve framework debates on substantive issues (what is better for the communities) over rules violations (limits/ground) but can be convinced to prefer the latter if the affirmative’s interpretation is lacking.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">__Theory:__ <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">A few important things(this all applies to T): <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">1) Have an interpretation – without one I have a hard time resolving these debates <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">2) Your interpretation needs to make sense – Its really difficult for me to evaluate a debate between “the neg gets to read as many conditional advocacies as they read -1” vs “the negs to read as many conditional advocacies as there were in the 1NC”. I find both interpretations to be arbitrary. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">3) Impact your fairness and education arguments in terms of the ramifications they have on debate – I find those to be more meaningful than “they could read too many things” and “they wouldn’t allow us to read enough things.” <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">4) Competing interpretations and reasonability don’t have to be mutually exclusive. However I do default to competing interpretations without further instruction.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">__Framework Debates:__ <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">1) I prefer interpretations of the words of the resolutions not come from debate authors. I also vote for them all the time. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">2) Impacts grounded in the consequences of discussing policy issues at an instrumental level are more persuasive to me than the limits/ground DA’s.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">__Counterplans__ <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">1) Process counterplans are usually not competitive. This doesn’t mean I’ll default to the permutation, it just means my threshold for this argument is higher. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">2) Slow down on counterplan texts. I don’t want to wait until the middle of the debate to figure out what the counterplan does.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">__Disads__ <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">1) Offense/Defense is a good guideline but not a rule – A good defensive press against a DA can result in there being a negligible risk of the DA making it go away. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">2) Good turns the case analysis involves describing how the different steps of your impact implicate affirmative solvency. Constantly reasserting that we can’t do the aff during the apocalypse is largely wasted time. I get it. If you win the aff definitely causes extinction, you’re probably already going to win the debate. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">3) This goes along with number 1 but “any risk” analysis is not very persuasive in front of me. A 99% chance that nothing will happen as a result of the aff makes me think the aff is pretty safe bet.