Sanchez,+Jason

I am a varsity debater for ASU and have judged about ten rounds on the space topic. Although I prefer standard policy debate arguments, I have a very high tolerance for arguments that are unique or controversial. If you want to run a Hitler good arg or base an argument on a fiction book, I am fine with it. Been there, done that. Arguments are arguments.
 * General notes**:

That said, I do not leave my brains at the door. Smart analytics and perhaps some good evidence will get you a long way with me.


 * Kritiks**: They are fine. Do not pretend I know all the nuances of your K lit and hope I fill in the gaps. Also, polysyllabic words that exist to inject a bit of extra jargon in the debate are bad. If your argument is simple, say it simply. If your argument is complex, you should strive to make your explanation even simpler.

The most strategic Ks are ones that aren’t utopian but instead are Ks of methodology. Also, I believe that the word “should” is fundamentally an ethics question. Therefore it is not enough to say that the other team’s epistemology is wrong and that I should vote for you. There must be an impact to why I should vote for you.


 * DAs**: Yes!!! Run politics or any DA you are comfortable running. I love a good DA debate. For the neg, read some cards on how the DA turns the case. If you are aff, the best defense I can think of is to read ev on how something that happened in the status quo (that postdates the DA uniqueness) links harder to the DA than the plan does.


 * CPs**: Also a good idea. I prefer both textual and functional competition. If you are aff and concede that the CP solves 100% of case, you must do one of the following to win: Win theory, Turn the DA, Read a DA against the CP that doesn’t link to your case that outweighs the DA they read. What will not work is a wall of defense against the DA.


 * T**: Your 2AC needs 7 things: we meet, counter-interp, we meet the CI, our CI is good, your interp is bad, competing interps are bad, don't vote on potential abuse. If you have all of these arguments and they apply, you will win T unless your interpretation isn't reasonable. Good is good enough.


 * Performance**: I debate in D1 in college. I see Fullerton read performance affs and do it well. If you want to do it, you'd better be very good at it, because my standards are pretty high. I'm probably not a good judge to be anti-topical in front of. I find hard framework arguments (they should advocate a plan through the USFG) and soft T arguments (it'd be cool if our "space exploration bad" args applied) persuasive.


 * Other random things**: I like topical affs. You should spread. Cheap shots are probably only voters if they are straight-conceded. Ultra cheap shots have to be conceded the entire debate. The ROB of an aff is always to vote for the best policy option unless you say otherwise. If you're unclear and I don't catch an arg, I won't vote on it.

Please, please, please do impact calculus in your final speech.

I'm a paperless debater. If you are as well, prep runs until the speech is ready and is on the flash drive. You also must offer the other team a viewing computer if they don’t have computers of their own.