Martinez,+Trevor

I debated for four years in high school. I used to coach at Hopkins High School. I currently am the head coach at Coon Rapids High School. Updated: 11/24/13


 * Theory:**

1) There must be structure that includes:
 * 1) a. The norm that the person running theory presents
 * 2) b. Whether you break or harm said norm (and the impact of this)
 * 3) c. The action that I should take because said norm is broken and warrants UNIQUE to that specific course of action.

It does not have to be the conventional structure but I have yet to see someone actually utilize something other than the conventional theory structure.

2) I default to reasonability (ESPICIALLY IN TERMS OF THE PUNISHMENT YOU DESCRIBE). If you tell me theory is evaluated in terms of competing interpretations I will listen but your justification MUST be longer two sentences. I wont vote anyone down due to a blippy argument that is supposed to be a trigger a “normal” conception of how theory is supposed to be evaluated.

3) RVI’s - Proving that you are legitimate is not a reason for you to win. HOWEVER, theory does need to be checked and if you can authentically, legitimately, and specifically prove that in this case it is only being ran as a time suck, etc. that will justify an RVI.

4) Competing Interpretations:

a. The specific wording (in 95% of rounds-that means this is not true 5% of the time) is not my barometer for competitiveness. I GENERALLY don't accept interps to be the theory equivalent to a plan text.

b. If you have turns that you are winning which link back to the winning voter (or structural equivalent), you do not need a counter interp. Think of the interp and shell like a traditional AC. We do not require the negative to read a counter plan/alternative advocacy to vote for them. Turns on shells ARE sufficient to prove an endorsement of a WORSE norm/interp than whatever the “abusive” debater is apparently endorsing/doing. Moreover, if it really is about what norms I would justify than why would it EVER make sense for me to justify or allow a norm that causes more harm than what the shell advocates?

5) Don’t run potential abuse in front of me.

6 ) No generalities. The violation must be unique, specific, and explicit. Links to the harms in your standards (or structural equivalent) must be made to the abuser (see why I reject potential abuse). Voting for a generic theory shell is like voting for a DA or K that doesn’t link to the AC.


 * LARPing** (Plans/CPs/DAs)

I debated them. I will vote for them. I would prefer to not see them if possible. If you do need it to win / want to run it anyways, I will deal. I don’t care if your plan is inherent (unless your opponent makes argument as to why I should). It just turns the AC into the squo, adjust the arguments as such. Please minimize jargon and take extra steps to make sure I understand the link chain as I do not see these arguments as often as some others.


 * Kritiks**

1) I did fair amount of reading (and debating of the K) **IN HIGHSCHOOL** but am, by no means, an absolute expert on critical philosophy. Do not automatically infer that I know what your talking about in the same way you should not infer your opponent should understand them after hearing them for the first time. If I do not catch the warrants and you cannot / do not explain them well enough for me without relying on me to crutch to my background knowledge, they wont be evaluated. END. OF. STORY.

2) Ks GENERALLY do not need an alt like they would in policy unless your opponent is running a Plan. HOWEVER, if they don’t operate underneath your opponents standard (which 99.999% of the time they wont) I want to see a framework and you must clash and compare with your opponents.

3) If you want me to vote on pre-fiat / discourse / micropolitics etc. the same justifications and threshold I have for theory applies here because you are asking me to not evaluate substance.

4) YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION IN PLAIN ENGLISH TO YOUR OPPONENT IF HE ASKS IN CX. YOU WILL LOOSE SPEAKS IF YOU CAN’T / WON’T DO THIS.

Basically, don’t be one of those people that gives K debaters a bad name.


 * ERR THANG ELSE:**

I am fine with speed under two conditions, you are clear and you slow for tags / authors. If I miss something and it is legitimately MY fault (i.e. you are clear just too fast), I will call for the case after the round, I wont punish you because I lied to you on my paradigm.

Extensions must include the warrant (not just a reference to the warrant).

When signposting, don’t only tell me “the second response on the blah blah blah”. Name the argument if you want me to flow it in the right place or I will probably get confused. Also, that gives me time to flip my paper over etc. and find it.

I LOVE ME ARGUMENT INTERATION. SERIOUSLY – IF YOU WANT THE MYTHICAL WIN 30, THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT. COMPARE THE SPECIFIC WARRENTS WELL. SAME GOES FOR YOUR WEIGHING ANALYSIS.

Also, these arguments I would prefer not to see. I will vote for them, I just dislike them, they will prevent a win 30 (and probably a win 29) if I have to vote for them:

1) Un-responded to A Priori 2) A trigger to something your opponent did not understand 3) Unnecessary speed. You should try to speed match the AC. A little faster is fine. Don’t be excessive. 4) Some crazy dropped def that excludes everything your opponent is saying. 5) Existential risk. (I default to pref prob over mag unless told otherwise)