Viegas,+Paul

I debated in high school for Science Park high school in Newark I debate now for Rutgers University

Since I know it is a pain to read through entire judge philosophies i decided to make 2 versions of it:

Short Version: Like: technical topicality debates, well articulated and non generic K debates, fast paced counter Plan and disad debates, all in theory debates, in round abuse articulations, framework debates that make sense.

Dislike: frameworks that exclude what someone wants to talk about in a debate, rude debaters (there's a difference between aggressive and rude), an unreasonable amount of conditional worlds.

Long Version: I came from a very small high school with an even smaller debate team so it was difficult to produce a lot of evidence as a team. Therefore I believe that a good analytic argument can go a long way if it is well articulated and makes sense. If the argument is more complex it is probably best to read evidence and sit on explanations for longer.

I'm a newer judge, and for that very reason I feel like my biases aren't defined and like the type of debates that I enjoy watching are still to be determined. Regardless, here is a summary of the arguments that I went for the most in my own debate rounds.

I was a 2N and 1A in high school and the opposite in college, which means that I've experienced and have had control over negative positions and affirmatives that I ran.

On the affirmative: I have ran everything from big stick hegemony and warming affirmatives, to a psychoanalytical version of a capitalism performance affirmative. I enjoy both types of affirmative debates and feel that each have their pros and cons. Policy affirmatives tend to require less case explanation and just come down to the affirmative's interactions with negative positions that were ran while more Critical affirmatives have a higher threshold of explanation and have less diverse answers read against them. Therefore these debates have to be made interesting for me because if I get bored I probably think your performance was bad.

Slam the table, get my attention and sell me your idea is the way to go when it comes to me as a judge in general.

On the negative I tend to lean towards a more technical debate, I have ran almost everything from the K, to a DA, to a CP, to a performance, all the way from T to Theory and have had wins and losses on each of these positions. I think it is important for the negative team to run a reasonable amount of positions against the affirmative, for example, running 3 counter plans and a K will probably get you in trouble if the other team articulates and impacts conditionality properly.

Now I'll explain burdens:

Topicality: I have no default when it comes to topicality, I will evaluate it the way that you tell me too. I will always call for definitions but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't talk about them. I always treated T debates as a disad debate where both interpretations represent the plan and a counter plan. A discussion of the good and bad things about each interpretation should occur. Thorough explanation in the rebuttals are very persuasive to me but generally T debates should be organized and technical.

Theory: I have a high threshold for theory but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't go for it. If you are going for theory go all in and make sure that you have reasons that the violation matters, especially if there is no in round abuse.

Disad: These debates often require a story and thorough explanation of the way the disad interacts with the case. I like a disad debate more when there is a counter plan because it makes the debate ways that negative effects of plan can be avoided.

Counter Plans: There is only one important thing when it comes to these, always read theory and make permutations against counter plans but MAKE SURE YOU READ SUBSTANCE on this flow.

Kritiks: I have a high threshold of explanation when it comes to the K, especially when they are a little more complicated than Capitalism or Heidegger. You should sit down on the alternative and explain it if you want me to vote for it. I think that 2AC and Block frameworks are advantageous and important when it comes to the K and should always become a discussion. Otherwise the K is something that I have always enjoyed.

Performance: I did performance for a while and there are a few things that I should say. I think that performances are valuable but only if they are made valuable. Performance debates where you just read cards and there is no discussion about the value of performative education make it difficult for me to vote for. If you are a performance team, talk about why your affirmative is important and break debate norms the way that your affirmative suggests that you should.

Impact Calculus: do it, it's important, the way impacts interact change the way judges vote all of the time.