Jimenez,+Julian

Julian Jimenez **Experience:** Debated for four years in high school for Science Park and I'm currently debating for Rutgers University-Newark. **Email:** julian.socialism.jimenez@gmail.com

I would consider myself a tabula rasa judge, I ran mostly critical arguments in high school, however; I have ran policy affirmatives/arguments as well so don't be afraid to have me as a judge just because of my debate experience. The reason I consider myself tabula rasa is because I've always hated having judges that were very one-sided it was very annoying being a performance team trying to get the ballot from a judge who likes policy,so I always told myself that I will be the happy middle that way teams can debate whatever they want to instead of adjusting their strategy to my paradigm. Okay enough of the rant, here's my view on typical debate arguments. Also, please note that since I already stated that I'm okay with all arguments I will only be stating what I feel needs to be done on certain positions if you want my ballot. (If you as a debater/coach feel I am leaving something out please email me and I'll add it accordingly)


 * Counter-Plans: ** My problem with counterplans is that they're not well thought out. In my four years of debating I've rarely seen a counterplan that was really executed well. The problem that most people have with this argument is the solvency mechanism which is my problem as well. If you plan on winning my ballot by going for a counterplan than you as the debater need to have really good evidence as to how you solve for the affirmative, it needs to be SPECIFIC to the affirmative, I hate when you debaters read generic evidence, it irritates me, so please don't do it. Also, if you do run a counterplan it's always smart to run an internal net benefit as well as an external one that way you're not always forced to go for the disad, just a note.


 * Kritiks: **I honestly love critical arguments, doesn't mean that I'll always vote on it. Just because I'm familiar with the literature doesn't mean that I know what you're talking about. Okay, here's my problem with most kritiks.....the alternative! I've heard a lot of critical arguments in my day and I've heard some pretty amusing alternatives, so please just explain how the alternative functions, whether in-round or outside the round, or whatever just give me a clear explanation of the alternative, overviews help with this.


 * Topicality: **Here's m y problem with Topicality, its that, it's usually a time-skew I've never seen it run well with the exception of one or two times. If you really love going for T against people who you really think are being abusive then do it, just be convincing. I need a clear explanation of what ground you loss, run disads then wait for them to kick out of them. If you want my ballot on this position, you have to be clever and think outside the box.


 * Theory: **//Probably the hardest argument to win my ballot on.// I've always resented these types of arguments because it's so hard to prove abuse, now I'll agree that if the negative runs like 2 Ts, 2 kritiks, 2 CPs, 2 DAs and some case then you'll get my ballot fairly easy, but other than something outrageous like that then it's rather hard. Also, I don't think there is a difference between dispo and condo, its the same to me. I do find certain theory arguments more intriguing than others such as severance because as a K-debater most of the times in high school I've hated when teams say they solve for capitalism even though their affirmative wants to reclaim U.S Dominance, like really bro? really? Anyways, to sum it all up, I will rarely pull the trigger on theory, unless your very damn convincing.


 * Disads: **//Another position that will be rather hard to win my ballot.//  I find politics really boring just because everybody runs the same three scenarios with the same impact card from four years ago, it's irritating. BUT, if you run a disad that is specific to the affirmative that's much better and more flavorful. Debaters are really intelligent and have research skills that surpass average people so why not use that knowledge to come up with something new and fun! This way I can actually be interested in this discovery. And, in all honesty every time I ran a disad it was case specific, its just easier to win rounds with disads that are that amazing. So, now you have your disad and your wondering what do you do next. I've always found it hard to buy disads for one reason, they're usually over-exaggerated . If you want to win on this you have to make sure that your explanation is on-point.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Affirmatives: **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">I ran a critical affirmative my sophomore and some of my junior year. I ran a performance aff from the end of my junior year until now. I've run a policy affirmative due to partner changes and I've learned to adjust to policy style debate. I've actually enjoyed debating policy affirmatives because it was a breathe of fresh air. Anyways, whether you're far to left or far to the right, you can read any affirmative that you want in front of me. Straight up affirmatives, you continue to be straight up so there isn't much criticism here for you, except if you ever defend racism or patriarchy good I will vote you down, just watch your discourse in front of me, okay? Also, encouraging racism is wrong and you will get a 0 for speaker points, just saying. For all the K-debaters and K-Affs on the high school circuit, listen to me well. Do whatever you want to do, I will not restrain you, unless you're being reckless then you got to stop. My problem with most critical affirmatives is the advocacy, I'll most likely agree with you on every other level, but you need to explain how your advocacy is key to solving for your impacts. I need to know how whether in round or out of the round we can take a step towards change. I need to know why my ballot is important, need a clear and efficient explanation of how you solve for the overarching idea/system or whatever you talk about.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">***NOTE THAT IF YOUR NEGATIVE AGAINST PERFORMANCE AFFS I WILL NEVER BUY THE ARGUMENT "Framework is all we have!" Just saying :)** <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;"> Best Strategy against K-Affs is to either out kritik them or engage in their performance while still being policy. Well, Julian how do we do that? Do exactly what James Madison University did against us which is perform a Heg Good K. Wait, what was their performance? They stood up and pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, we won that round but still, it was fun and very creative.