Lopez,+Pablo

I debated for Columbia Jr. College for 2 years. I won a gold in LD at CCCFA and competed in the Phi Rho Pi tournament in 2013.


 * __General:__ **I love creative, off the wall, warranted arguements. My gut checks are dangerous because I'm not very smart, don't make do it. Clear signposting makes my job way easier, which in turns makes me like you more . Speaker points are awarded based on confidence, wit, and character; teams that I have given high speaker points to do not always win. I'm cool with spreading, but you have to be cool with the idea that I might not catch all your arguments. On rebuttals I like clean impact risk analysis. If any adv or disad somehow ends in nuclear war or dehumanization I expect clear definitions and link stories; I don't think I've ever voted on any nuclear war impact because at the impact level it was always left assumed.

__ **Topicality:** __ I like Ts as a check, and am willing to vote on T if you demonstrate clear abuse. I don't believe in potential abuse. If you run a T I want an explanation of how the debate would be different under the new interpretation.

__ **Ks:** __ I don’t read any of the literature. I'm not against Ks, but if you want my ballot I need clear explanations. With that being said I have LOVED some Ks in the past, such as a Language Bastardization K. I feel like the NEG should be willing to write down the text of their K in case AFF requests it.


 * __CPs:__ ** I think most CPs are legit, but I also feel most PICs are topical and therefore are actually pro AFF arguements. Evidence about the link to the net-benefit is not solvency in my book.


 * __Theory:__ ** I love theory debates, but I'm actually not very good with theory. I don't particularly like conditional arguments, and mostly vote AFF on condo (as long as its responded to). I have a specially hard time flowing theory and if you slow down and clearly explain why your interpretations are legitimate you will probably win some favor with me.