Jacobo+Pablo

Years I debated in Policy Debate in High School: 3 Years Judging: 4 For email chains my email is pablojacobo8899@gmail.com

__**Important Stuff:**__ I am open to any type of debate and feel judge intervention is circumstantial. I view theory as a reason to reject the argument, not the team, unless of course it's Condo Bad theory or anything else that is framed as being an independent voting issue. CASE DEBATE IS IMPORTANT (As a Kritikal 1NC, I spent most of my time on the case debate finding links; I believe debaters that are just learning should focus on the topic and/or discussion of the affirmative plan) so please don't write it off as being unimportant when you read a 1 Off Kritik, engage it in some form (this can be done on the K flow, at which point you'd be much better off reading the K on the Case flow) or provide alternative role of the ballots so I know how I ought to evaluate the round.

OH MAN THE IMPACTS - Seriosuly I've judged about 30 debates on this topic and nothing annoys me more than when a team reads an argument without an impact or ASSUMES that the argument made is an impact-in-itself: Well, first of all that's a tautology which my lord and saviour Deleuze taught me were bad and second if you're not giving me reasons why something is bad then it's just an empty claim, not an argument, at which point I won't weigh it against the other team. Please impact out whatever YOU think needs to be sufficiently impacted out; don't be surprised if I don't vote on you when the other team drops a theory argument that was only impacted out for 10 seconds at the bottom of the 2NR.

__**General:**__

I'm very lenient on prep time; just don't spend a large amount of time flashing your evidence to the other team.

Please don't prep while the other team is flashing their evidence; if I see you doing this, I'll deduct 0.5 speaker points everytime.

We all have those rounds where our computers just simply don't care about us so if you're having technical difficulties, be sure to tell me so I can give you extra time or even lend you my computer if necessary.

Case debate is important (see above)

CounterPlans are fine, insofar they have a clear net benefit otherwise the Permutation solves everything : ^ )

Disadvantages are fine, but I will not vote for them if the argument is not made that it turns the case (because most of the time, the Case outweighs the DA, unless of course your DA outweighs the Case at which point the debte becomes very interesting and I no longer need the "turns case" argument to vote Neg on the DA)

Kritiks are my favorite! When I have been the 2NR, instances in which my partners did not want to be the 2NC or I was maverick, I went for the K all the time. I have read critical literature and I have gone for things such as Deleuze and Guattari, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Ortho Marx, Security, Wilderson, etc. I'm pretty sure I can keep up, but if I can't then please be sure to explain it. Note: This topic has led me to philosophers whom I'm familiar with (Agamben/Foucault/Mbembe) and those whom I'm not famliar with (Preciado and Moten), although I have done my best to read through all the literature I was unfamiliar with (namely Preciado and Moten), don't expect me to be an expert on the philosophy but more often than not, I'll be able to follow the debate fairly well.

Even though I generally prefer Kritikal arguments, a good Framework debate is incredibly interesting; for instance, watching Nietzschean high theory clash with a good Framework Shell is incredible and really lets me enjoy the debate. When I would debate framework; my interpretation was usually something only the lines of "the affirmative team should defend a topical action." This doesnt mean I'll err neg if this type of interpretaton is read in front of me, but I'm very familiar with it and enjoy the much more lenient types of framework.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If you have any questions before or after the round, ask me and I'll try my best to answer you <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">__**Cross-Ex:**__ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">These are very intersting and I pay attention to them a lot; they are important in the sense that it helps you articulate your arguments better and it helps me follow the debate; just do not get too sassy and in their face type of way; if you want to do tag-team cross examination, that's fine too, just don't have one debater asking all the questions. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">__**Rebuttals:**__ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If an arugment does not have an impact, I will not flow it. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Don't waste your time on overviews; unless there's a really sick cross-application you have or concession that the other team made in their previous speech to tell me about; even then, those things should belong in your line by line. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Extra: I spend most of my time reading philosophy and trolling on Twitch and Reddit so if you can make Dank Memes in the round, extra 0.5 speaker points (in total) for you. Or not; I'm very lenient when it comes to speaker points, I rarely give 27.5's.