Paguio,George

I've debated for 3 years for Notre Dame High School, and have just recently graduated. First thing you should know about having me as your judge is that I have very little to no knowledge about the topic or topic literature, and therefore, you will have a harder time trying to get me to understand a lot of topic specific jargon. This means that I prefer that, no matter what the strategy in the round is, you give an ample amount of explanation along with clarification of any jargon you intend on using throughout the round. After that, I'm not picky with a surprisingly large number of strategies if you go run them well, so the following will be mostly guidelines and pointers on different types of arguments:

__Topicality __ If you're going for it, PLEASE be the only thing in the 2NR If nobody tells me how to evaluate T, which YOU SHOULD REGARDLESS, I default to competing interpretations Make sure you impact T properly - if you do it well, I'm actually easier to persuade than most judges to vote against a "mainstream" aff Slow down for T. If you blip 9 arguments at me in 15 seconds, I'm more than likely only going to have 2 of them on my flow. You want your arguments on my flow T is not a reason to vote aff, nor is it genocide

__Theory __ Gotta do what you gotta do, but please do a decent job at impacting your argument I generally am very 'technical' on the theory flow - dropped arguments are HUGE, but only if you impact them correctly I don't have too many predispositions, as long as you have a buyable abuse story Speaker points go up if you call out abusive strategies, more than likely regardless of whether or not you win the flow

__Counterplan __ Must be competitive - I don't care how - and the more specific, the better I default to rejecting the argument on CP theory unless persuaded otherwise. Keep in mind that, if you win the 'technical' flow while going for a "reject the team" argument without good warrants as to why I should do that, I won't default to rejecting the CP for you - I'll probably still weigh it if the other team can convince me your reasons don't warrant your impact <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Again, no dispositions against any counterplans, but if you're overly generic, don't expect TOO many speaker points. Again, the more specific, the better

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Disads __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">I love seeing a good disad debate, but they've been increasingly irrelevant to the affirmative case or the topic in specific. As an incentive for me to actually learn more, your speaks will improve if you run case or at least topic specific disads <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">You will more than likely lose the disad debate (and this goes for both sides) if there is no talk about impact calculus. And this should be done before the final two speeches (1ar or the block) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Good way to get speaks is to make sure you contextualize the disad story to where I can understand and follow it's logic. You'll see it on my face if I get it, trust me

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Kritiks __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">I have read little to no K literature, so any jargon that isn't explained in some point in the round is more than likely going to either be ignored or bring a frown to my face <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Aff gets to weigh their case. "Fiat is illusory" arguments just don't make sense to me, because 'debate fiat' is assumed to be imagining a world in which the plan happens, meaning that you've just defined the word for me as opposed to making an argument. That being said, however, you can do a great job at convincing me otherwise, and receive my ballot for it <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Your K, or at least parts or the K, have to be specific if you want me to give you better speaks, or at least smile <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Alternatives are increasingly vague, the affirmative should really focus on attacking that <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Don't you dare act like you know what you're talking about when you don't. It'll just get everybody in confused and frustrated in the end

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Couple added points about my judging style: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">I give a LOT of weight to really smart analytics <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">I will ONLY evaluate things that make it to my flow. If you have an argument that you feel is needed to be there, you should slow down saying it <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Be polite in the round. Jerks get a lot less credibility to their arguments, and a huge drop in speaks <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Showing me you've read this judge philosophy by citing or following it in round will make me very happy with you