Anaya,Victor

Affiliation: Thomas Kelly HS Debate Experience: 3 years debating high school policy debate and LD; 2 year debating college parliamentary debate; this is my second year coaching policy debate both at the Varsity and Novice level. I have been judging for the past 3 years.

Judge philosophy- For the most part this is your burden. I will evaluate any argument as you want me to. 1. Every argument you are making should be warranted in some way. 2. As far as speed, be clear. I don't care how fast you go as long as you're still actually saying words. Usually when teams spread theory and topicality arguments, I don't flow them. Those arguments should be clear and coherent for me to understand them. 3. I will vote on presumption on both sides usually depending on the how the debate goes. For example, if the neg reads a politics DA and the aff answers it with a"non- unique", "No link" or "no risk of impact" arguments and non of them have any warrants behind them, then I will most likely vote for the politcs da on presumption, that's if the neg extends it. 4. If you're going to answer the 1AC, don't just read impact defense. Make offensive arguments as well. I rarely vote for the neg on On-Case just on defensive arguments. 5. I rarely vote on potential abuse for Topicality or on theory. 6. I'm okay with critical/performance affs as well as for the neg side. You all just have to tell me how to evaluate it. 7. If you are going to run a K, understand it. They can be educational, but just saying a whole bunch of jargon won't help you get my vote. I also don't like "reject the Aff" alternatives. In my mind those types of alternatives are usually very vague for me, unless proven otherwise, which is rare. Which means you would rarely see me vote on vague alternatives. 8. Good line-by-line, sign posting are also preferable!