Ramos,+Leo

__Background __: 4 years debating high school policy debate; 1 year debating college parliamentary style debate; I have been coaching policy debate at Thomas Kelly high school in Chicago for 3 years

__Spreading __: Just be clear on tags and on theory based arguments, including framework.

__Prep/Speech Time __: I do not count prep time against you when you flash but, this means that you have to have your files organized before you save and begin flashing. I like to let the round flow smoothly and let the debaters be in charge.

__On- Case __: If the 1AC is organized so that solvency evidence is read under every individual harm/advantage, then I would like to flow negative on-case arguments in the same order. Negative, this means that if you are going to read solvency take outs, put them under the harm/advantage the 1AC and then just give your roadmap as usual. I do vote negative on presumption and believe that the debate can be won on defensive arguments (inherency) but the negative needs to thoroughly explain why the affirmative is no different than the status quo or why it wouldn’t make a difference. I think that it is possible to win a no risk on solvency. (Presumption shifts to the affirmative on counterplans and alternatives to a critique, if there is not difference between them and the 1AC or if the affirmative wins a no risk of solvency).

__Theory __: I evaluate theory like I evaluate a disadvantage (link, internal link, impact). If I don’t believe that you have proven the impact, then I won’t evaluate the argument. I don’t evaluate any “risk” argument on theory. Condo/Dispo- I’d like it if the affirmative have a specific reason independent of the standards why their interpretation is key to their ability to debate. If the 2AR goes for this theory for 5 minutes but only went for it for 30 seconds or less in the 2AC/1AR I will not vote on it. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Theory on Counterplans: I always evaluate it. Some counterplans are very abusive. This doesn’t mean that I will not consider the counterplan. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Topicality- For the oceans topic, I don’t vote on the 5 oceans topicality. If you are going to debate competing interpretations I’d rather you give me a reason why debating that specific interpretation is bad. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Framework- If you are to read framework, I’d like it if you tell me to flow it on a separate sheet of paper. I will vote on framework alone if the debate comes down to it, but I do not value frameworks that attempt to exclude critiques. I won’t evaluate a criticism, whether affirmative or negative, if you lose framework.

__<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Counterplan Permutations: __ <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">If the affirmative wins the permutation then I believe that the counterplan is not competitive and am inclined to vote affirmative on presumption. If the affirmative wins the perm, and in going for the perm argues that the counterplan doesn’t go away and that this prevents a link to a net-benefit, then I err affirmative if the negative leaves this un-answered.

__<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Politics Disadvantages: __ <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Debating the political climate of the disadvantage you are reading makes it easier for me to vote on a politics disadvantage. As the negative, you may win some arguments that X will pass, but if your claim is that in order for these things to pass, XY or Z must happen, and the affirmative proves those impossible, I'm not going to vote for the politics DA.

__<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Critiques __<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">: <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I think critiques are valuable part of debate and should be expected. Although I mentioned that I dislike frameworks that attempt to exclude critiques, I believe that critical affirmatives need to have a link to the specific topic so that I may have a reason to reject the topic. <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I believe that the most important part of a critique is winning the substance of the link and impact warrants.

__<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Evaluating Evidence Post Round: __ <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I will only ask to see evidence at the end of the round if I am curious as to whether the evidence warrants the argument/analysis made, or if evidence comparison makes difficult for me to decide.