Sanchez,+Rafael


 * Law Magnet ’16**
 * The University of Texas at Dallas ’20**

I havent judged much on this topic so don't assume I know all the nuances of your arguments. Needless to say, you should probably explain your arguments anyway. I will evaluate all arguments. I judge based off an offense/defense paradigm and like most judges, I tend to believe I don't have any predispositions or biases.
 * General:**


 * Specifics:**
 * Case:** You should read it. Impact turn debates are nice to judge.


 * Topicality**: I enjoy T debates. I will pull the trigger on T regardless of the aff, as long as you debate T and put it into perspective. Because topicality is just another theory argument, I tend to judge it through competing interpretations, but that does not mean that I can't be persuaded otherwise.


 * DAs**: DAs are also a core debate argument. Specific DAs are always a plus. Although I will listen to any theory and have no problem voting for it, I will tend to default on neg for theory on the DA though.


 * Counterplans**: I think counterplans are a fundamental part of debate. Well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.


 * Kritiks/ K AFFs**: Over the past couple years I have opened up towards the K a lot. I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. I refuse to do that work for you regardless of my previous knowledge. I have no problem with teams running untopical affs as long as they can win that it’s good to do so. However, I will vote on framework if the aff/neg wins it produces a better model for debate.


 * Theory**: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I am unlikely, however, to vote on cheap shot theory arguments ie. “condo-vote strat skew and education”.