Aguirre,+Luis

Hi I'm Luis. I debated for Monticello High School between 2007-2011 and for Binghamton University in college. I debated Policy (and some public forum) for 5 years, on the national circuit later in my career. Although I did not debate LD, I've been judging it for a few years now and am comfortable with it.

General judging stuff:
 * 11/2015 update: When it comes to theory in LD, I've found that the more there is of it in a round the more likely I am to make a bad decision, especially when it comes to theory introduced in the 1AR. I implore you to not read Theory just to fill up time, if you can adequately answer your opponents off case args without theory try to do it.
 * There's no argument I reject on face... probably.
 * I'm fine with speed, although PLEASE be clear. At the higher levels of debate know that I try to type/write as fast as possible, but sometimes it's physically impossible for me to keep up, so if you can you might want to slow down some on important spikes, T and theory.
 * When arguing theory, framework, or uncarded arguments in general please don't plow through them at lightspeed because I will have more that I need to get down on my flow. I'm very dependent on my flow at the end of the debate to make a decision.
 * Between arguments pause, say next, have some sort of change in the tone/inflection of your voice or do something to make it obvious you are moving on and that I should flow. I space out if just sounds like you're just reading a book. I tend to remember evidence by the tagline and the content more than the author, so just be clear when you refer to something.
 * I don't flow cross-x/ cross-fire, and don't be surprised if I put my head down. I am paying attention and listening at you, so it's fine to reference comments from cross-x.
 * Flex prep is fine. Prep ends when you take your USB out of your computer to flash something

__LD__

Even though I was a policy debater, I really like watching and judging LD. So I'll always get a little happy hearing a plan text or a politics DA, and I'll give you high speaker points if you do it well, but I'm not biased to them and am open to any argument. However a lot of classic LD framework arguments and acronyms are not in my knowledge base, so err on the safe side and really thoroughly explain your argument. That doesn't mean that I'm dumb and won't understand the complexity of your arguments, I'll pick them up 80% of the time but again, doesn't mean that I already know what you're talking about. Be very, VERY clear as to WHY I should vote for you/vote down the opposition.

As to my argument preferences,
 * I really like the Kritik, for the last two years of my debate career i mostly debated the K on both sides. I'm perfectly fine with voting for a pre-fiat/role of the ballot type of argument, but you've gotta win the theory debate for it to come before theory.
 * I also really like T, I ran a lot of it when I debated. I believe as a judge it's easiest to look to competing interpretations, the brightline for reasonability is usually too vague.
 * RVIs on T and Theory: I never seem to find myself voting on RVIs, you'll usually have to have a better reason than time skew to win them.

__Policy__

My argument preferences gravitate more towards traditional policy arguments, especially on the affirmative. Although I was a critical debater the entirety of my last year debating, I'm more comfortable judging as a policy-maker, although will definitely vote for a well explained kritik, or one that has been dropped. But you're going to have a hard time winning me over on a generic kritik with alternatives that are simply "reject the aff and rethink", or most discourse Ks, against a well defended and impacted stock case. If it makes sense know that I like it when K's play out like CP+DA, so they should have a clear impact with a clear link and alternative that clearly does something different than the aff. Remember to PLEASE slow down while reading your theory and Framework shells.

It's fine to speak during your partner's speech or cross-x. I like T and will gladly vote for a T especially on a sketchy case that has obvious topicality problems, but T is an uphill battle on very obviously topical cases or nuanced/niche definitions. I default reasonability.