Trejo,+Khristyan

 **LAST UPDATED**: Glenbrooks Tournament '16

** Background: ** I debated in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League for 4 years. Most of my debate background is in Policy, but I currently debate for Tulane University in Parliamentary. I'm also the assistant debate coach for Isidore Newman School. I've been active in debate for 6 years. I believe that you should argue what you're best at. I'm down with whatever - but I will not vote for any racism/sexism/heteropatriarchy/transphobia good args. That's not cool. You'll get the ballot if you control the framing of the round, impact comparisons, spin of evidence and have the best evidence. The best evidence doesn't mean more, though. With that said, I like speed, but I'm not the fastest flower. Make sure you speak clearly. Tag-team cross-ex is fine. Prep ends when the flash drive is out of the computer. I flow on paper and you can refuse to answer substantiative questions during prep time.Don't clip or steal prep--I hate that. If you think that clipping occured, record the debate and wait until the speech is over. If there is substantive clipping according to the tape and the doc, then I will vote the team down and the clipper will receive a 0.  **Framework**: Make sure you control the framing of the impacts and comparing them to the opposing side. Arguments on both sides should be framed/explained in terms of importance in the round. Aff's shouldn't just be impact turning framework, they should also be giving reasons as to why the aff is debateable and the importance/education received from their discourse. The neg should provide clear explanations of the impacts to standards and the loss of ground within the round. Don't be that debater that just reads a shit load of evidence without any analysis.

** T: ** I default to competing interpretations, unless the aff explains why I should reject that framing. Reading cards is gucci.  Counterplans: I will not kick the counterplan for you. You should also have really good link analysis on the net-benefits if you don't want me to vote on the permutation. Impact comparisons on the CP is the best, don't make me hate it. This is an issue a lot of teams dismiss when reading CPs. If a CP is really cheating, then substantial theory arguments should be made. I'm not the biggest fan of generic process CPs that aren't rooted in the topic, but you do you.  **Kritiks**: Giant overviews are weird. Links need to have impacts--I would prefer a few good link arguments than a shit ton of links without any analysis. The feasibility of the alternative is important and the role of the judge is usually central to the debate, but debaters should give a substantial analysis as to what that exactly is. Don't undercover the perm and aff's should compare impacts. Impacts are important, just make sure you don't read "root cause to everything" for 4 minutes of your speech without any analysis or comparisons. If a debate comes down to discourse being key, I would be HIGHLY considerate of discourse. I can not emphasize how many debates I've seen where the opposite of this happens (even to the team reading the argument) and it's frustrating to watch.

** Politics DA: ** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">These debates should be surrounding evidence indicts and the question of uniqueness. I personally like argumentation surrounding the educational benefit/disadvantages from having ptx debates and whether or not they promote a good forum for debate. Neg teams usually struggle (often) with the internal link debate, so I would hope that these explanations are well-framed. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> **Theory**: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I generally reject the argument, not the team, unless there are multiple dropped explanations as to why the ballot should reflect this. Arguments surrounding in-round abuse that has substantially affected the round/education received from the debate are preferred. I know debate jargon, but theory debates shouldn't be overwhelmed with it--explain and analyze the importance of theory and why/why not it's neccessarily a voting issue.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> **Permutations**: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">If the aff's method claims to have a reasonable relationship to the topic, then the permutation shouldn't just be answered with severance arguments. Permutations should have a text and should somewhat be explained. These explanations tend to lack on the aff side. DA's to the perm are always a good thing, but should also be impacted.