Ramos,+Juan+Carlos

Juan Carlos Ramos Juanramos@gmail.com

I like to see clash in debates. Any argument is fine as long as it pertains to the central idea of debate. If you are going to run theory, and like to debate “multiple scenarios” is best – narrow down the main arguments early in the debate. Speed is ok, but you need to explain your argument. I'm not going to vote on a one liner you spent 15 seconds on.

Framework: Be sure to make good analysis on why the particular framework you’re advocating for is a better option for policy debate. Don’t run framework arguments simply to skew time and for the joy of running multiple off cases, I hardly ever buy that.

Kritiks: I will vote on Kritiks. Please do impacts analysis, and provide some concrete explanation of the Alt. On the Neg I expect there to be impact calc on the “K”; while on the Aff I expect them to use their aff and produce a solid framework argument to defend policy-making.

Counterplans/permutations/DAs: I expect a competing CP with breakdown done on the net benefit. I always expect a DA with a CP, which I expect doesn’t trigger the DA. I’ve never voted on a CP ran alone. If the Neg can prove that the Case worsens the status-quo (causing the DA) I like to see well-argued internal links. I’m not a big fan of general DAs, but a good discourse on a general DA is always good might change my mind.

Cons : Rude debaters (Show decorum) If going paperless, skewing time on flashing (make it quick) Debaters not flowing (ALWAYS FLOW)

Pros: Sportsmanship Preparedness Sense of Humor