Garcia,+Christian

=Background:= Hey, my name is Christian Garcia and I am a freshman at the University of North Texas. I debated as an LDer for Robert Vela High School from Edinburg, Texas. During my three years with the program, I was the UIL District Champion, made out-rounds at UIL Regionals (we were a 5A school by the way), and qualified for the Texas Forensics Association State Tournament.

=Paradigm Overview:= I view the round through an offense/defense paradigm. I don't vote on risk of offense, only on clear offense and defense, that's up to you as the debater to make clear in the round. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible as a judge, but to be 100% tab is completely impossible because there may be issues in the round that weren't clear that warrant my intervention to decide how I should be evaluating the debaters. If you want to avoid this, then please be as clear as possible and give voting issues in the final rebuttal.

=Framework/Defense:=

Value/Value-Criterion
I absolutely love a good framework debate. In terms of the value/value-criterion debate, I don't really care about the value because both sides of the debate end up having the same value like 99% of the time or just read a standard that shows us how we ought to act. Essentially, just show me why your standard or value-criterion precludes your opponents and why you gain all terminally defensive reasons to vote for you on the framework debate. I do not default to viewing the framework debate as an offensive one as many LDers do in a more traditional setting, but if you want to read turns to your opponents standard and then explain why your framework takes precedents over you opponents, then by all means, go for it. Just be sure to give a clear analysis that coherently explains why your framework comes first, meaning have some warrants.

A Prioris/Pre-Standards/Meta-Ethical Claims
If it is extremely well justified and thoroughly explained in every speech, then I have no problem with voting for the debater who runs any of the above.

Presumptions
Presumption goes neg, unless otherwise stated by the aff and made a voting issue in the round. Whatever the case may be, I will always look for a substantive reaon to vote aff or neg before I look ot presumption unless you frame presumption as an offensive reason to vote for you. It depends on how the round breaks down and how you explain it to me.

Role of the Ballot and Judge
If you're reading an aff or neg with these kind of framework arguments, then please make sure to be clear why the judge should be adopting that certain lens to viewing the round. Additionally, make sure you're case is actually critical. The following excerpt from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy clarifies: "It follows from Horkheimer's definition that a critical theory is adequate only if it meets three criteria: it must be explanatory, practical, and normative, all at the same time. That is, it must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation. Any truly critical theory of society, as Horkheimer further defined it in his writings as Director of the Frankfurt School's Institute for Social Research, “has as its object human beings as producers of their own historical form of life” (Horkeimer 1993, 21). In light of the practical goal of identifying and overcoming all the circumstances that limit human freedom, the explanatory goal could be furthered only through interdisciplinary research that includes psychological, cultural, and social dimensions, as well as institutional forms of domination."

Observations/Definitions
Strategic observations and definitions that give you more access to the ballot is always a good strategy, especially when it comes to clarifying burden structures and in-round discourse.

Additional Information
If you have any more questions about how I see framework level debate or how what constitutes it, then feel free to ask me before the round.

=Contention/Offense=

Blocks/Defense
I find these kind of arguments weaker by nature on the contetnion level debate, but have no problem voting for any debater who makes it a voting issue in the round. Just be sure to clearly explain why that defensive reason outweighs any offense coming from your opponents case through some sort of clear analysis or reason to prefer or impact calculus. Remember: the best defense is a good offense. That sounds like the formula to a great overview in the final speeches.

Turns/Offense
Please be clear on what argument is being turned on the flow and explain the link-internal link-impact scenarios well. Additionally, tell me why your advocacy is better than your opponents. Please don't get up and say turn the argument. You would want to say that and then give me a comparatively better reason as to why your advocacy is better. Also, be very cautious of double-turns. Don't get offense-drunk and contradict yourself.

Additional Information
If you have any more questions about how I see the contention level debate or what constitutes it, then feel free to ask me before the round.

=Truth-Testing V Comparative Worlds= I default Comparative Worlds. To clarify, I view the Comparative Worlds Model as the aff taking the resolution and affirming it as a general principle or reading a paramatreziced advocacy with some unique advantages (a thesis) and the neg going up and doing one of two things: first, defending the antithesis of the resolution and accessing some unique impacts that can be weighed with the affirmative world and turning the aff or second, reading some off-case positions. Having noted that, I am okay with plans, counterplans, disadavantages, kritiks, topicallity, and theory. I will vote on Truth-Testing, if the reasons are compelling enough. If you have any more questions about how I feel about Truth-Testing V Comparative Worlds or more specific, technical definitions of the two, then feel free to ask me about it.

=Policy-Oriented Arguments in LD=

Plans
Please be sure to be topical. Don't read a plan or some parametriziced advocacy and not expect a neg not to read some topicality or theory shell.

Counterplans
Counterplans must use the same actor as the aff. That's not to say that I won't vote on a counterplan that doesn't use the same actor, I'll just be less likely to vote for it. Don't read a counterplan if you're not ready for the aff to go for a perm.

Plan-Inclusive Counterplans
As long as it's well-justified, then by all means go for it.

Kritiks
I'll vote on them, if you explain every argument in the K well enough. So, please be sure to explain the link, internal link, and impact. Additionally, give me a comparative reason as to why the world of the alternative is more desirable than the aff world. Don't read a kritik if you're not ready for some theory debate about the alternative needing to be some policy change or rejection bad argument. Also, I'm not a fan of generic K's. The more contextualized the K evidence is to the resolution or the aff, the more likely I am to vote for it.

Disadvantages
Like the K, please be sure to clearly explain the link-internal link-impact scenario clearly. This means reading the DA and giving me a comparative reason as to why it outweighs the aff and is better in the short or long run. The more specific the DA is to the aff, the more likely I am to vote on it.

Theory/Topicallity
I love a good theory/topicallity debate. I default competeing interpretations and both the aff and neg can get RVIs. Please be clear on the interpretation. Please give multiple reasons in the violation. Try to read unique standards. As always, when giving the voting issues, please explain the internal links to fairness and education and why Theory or Topicality comes first. I am open to I meets, but find those arguments defensive in nature; however, I will vote on them if well warranted. I am open to reasoabillity, but please be clear as to what part of the Theory/Topicality shell you are addressing and whether or not your reasonabillity claims are substative enough for you to win that layer of the flow.

Additional Information
As long as you read some framework arguments, that have a value/value-criterion/standard in the case, then it's still LD. If the case doesn't have a framework in it, then that's fine too. If you have any more questions about Policy-Oriented Arguments in LD or what would constitute it, then feel free to ask me before the round.

=Miscellaneous Information=

Speed
You can read as fast as you want you speed freak. Please, for clarity in the round's sake, slow down on taglines and citations and any info you actually want me to get on the flow. Additionally, if you're reading 350+ WPM, then I expect you to flash, email, or give your opponent a paper copy of the case and speeches as the round progresses. I will not use this time as prep time, so please be as fast as possible. Also, if you would really want me to get everything on the flow, then you would either slow down where you want me to get the info, add me to the email chain (C.Garcia1020@yahoo.com), or flash me the case and speeches. Also, I will yell clear 5 times before I stop flowing.

Prep Time
Everybody gets four minutes of time unless the tournament states otherwise. Also, I'm okay with flex prep, unless the tournament says otherwise.

Cross Examination
Be savage in a respectful way.

Speaker Points
I default to 27 points and will go up and down as the round progresses. If you want more points, then follow my paradigm and be clear.

Presentation
Stand up or sit down. I could care less. I'm just flowing the round. If I look up, then I'm probably either confused as heck and asking myself what the heck is the kid even saying or thinking to myself damn, watch this kid slay this round.

Trigger Warnings
I strongly believe that having the debate space be safe for everybody involved is absolutely key to discussing some of the most critical and pressing issues of our times. Having noted that please you trigger warnings! A lot of people in the debate community have gone through some crazy and traumatic shit. Please don't be the asshole that takes them back to those terrible places. I've seen it happen. I don't want to be the judge that votes you down because you had nothing else to read or refused to read something else for whatever reason.