Alonsozana,+Joshua


 * University of Maryland & Loyola Blakefield**

I am currently a Junior in College. While I am no longer a debater, I keep myself in the loop by keeping track of topics and the general case arguments for those topics. I attended and debated for Loyola Blakefield High School in Towson Maryland between 2009 and 2013.


 * Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm**

I did Lincoln Douglas Debate at various competitive levels between 2009 and 2013 for Loyola Blakefield. I also competed in /have judge for Improptu, Student Congress, and Public Forum Debate. My studies have covered a variety of topics ranging from local politics, health, trading regulation, taxes, etc. at the local and national level.

I believe that, between my experiences as a debater and level of activity within the Forensics scene as a whole, my expertise as a judge covers a rather vast range of topics and styles. To me, there is no set way that a debate should go. Debates are won by //the better debater// not necessarily by some random argument that one person or another happens to put in their case. It is their job to properly present and defend their arguments. **It is not my job to debate for you.** Debaters are responsible for connecting their own dots, not spitting information and expecting me to deal with it.


 * Presentation:** I expect there to be **a level of decorum and civility upheld throughout the round.** I will not tolerate blatant disrespect from or between the debaters in round. While **I will not drop a competitor** if he or she exhibits improprieties in round, such factors weigh heavily in my distribution of speaker points. If debate is meant to be an educational exercise, then it does not include vulgarities, screaming, or rudeness.

**Speed:** Personally, I have no predisposition to speed **so long as you are clear and articulate with what you say.** I will say "clearer" once if I cannot discern what a debater is saying. If enunciation or speed shows no alteration, then I will not flow what I cannot understand. That being said, **I do have a high tolerance for speed- just show common sense and annucaition with how fast you deliver.**

**Theory/Off Case Arguments:** I will allow theory and other Off Case Arguments in round; **I have no predispositions as to how I think a debater should approach a round**. While the purpose of any rhetorical exercise is to discuss and discern the implications of the matter at hand, the argumentative parameters of the debate are set by the participants. **Tell me how and why your position at the end of the round is superior.** As to how one crystallizes the elements in round or presents their arguments, that is completely up to the framework and lens gleaned from the interaction between the two debaters. In addition, **cases of abuse must be substantiated and proven**; one cannot merely claim abuse and let it lie.

In essence: Give me clear **IMPACT ANALYSIS** AND thorough **DECISION CALCULUS.**

**Additional Considerations:** No matter how a debate ends up being crafted in round, I do expect one thing: **substantive clash.** If the two debaters are not engaging each other, then the round is effectively useless, like two ships passing in the night. No judge wants to be left without a clear, definitive picture of how the round went or how each debater formulates his or her position. Even if the final RFD is hard to decide, a round of direct clashing is worth a thousand indirect rounds with specious reasoning and obtrusive argumentation.


 * Oral Critiques and Disclosure:** If there is time for me to deliver an Oral Critique after the round, then I will. Otherwise, debaters are welcome to come and track me down for an oral critique. My disposition to Disclosure is slightly different. I will ask the debaters if they want me to disclose at the end of the debate. If both agree then I will proceed to do so. However, keep in mind that (at least in my experience), disclosure can be one of the most damning or amazing feelings in debate. If you want that risk, then go for it.