Graca,+Matthew

Gabrielino High School 2011-2015

If you are going into the round with 5 seconds of prep:

tech>truth in all instances

Speech times are set, one team wins

I will ask for what you are reading (if it is electronic), and I will follow at random intervals, just as a precaution. For email chains, my email is matthew.graca@gmail.com However, will not reevaluate this evidence post-round, I don't want to do that work for you.

Don't be afraid to use analytics to take out bad arguments. Just because you need a warrant for everything, doesn't mean you always need a card for it.

Explanatory overviews are much appreciated, especially for nuanced strategies and positions.

If I'm confused, I will look confused. Take advantage of this.

I don't believe in debating for anyone. //__**If you can justify it, you can run it**__//

DO IMPACT CALC OR I WILL GOT FOR THE LOWEST HANGING FRUIT. I AM ACTUALLY AN IDIOT SO PLEASE MAKE MY LIFE EASY


 * JESUS CHRIST SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS/THEORY MAH GOD, WHY DO PEOPLE MOTORBOAT THROUGH THIS LIKE IT'S DISPOSABLE EVIDENCE YEESH*


 * GENERAL STUFF**

(1) Topic Familiarity: I'm no educator. Please explain your various economic programs, acronyms, etc.

(2) Delivery: Not really used to speed anymore tbh. Using audible cues such as increasing the volume of your voice and slowing down instinctively puts my pen to paper. Do so for things you want me to flow.

(3) Volume of content: However many issues you want on the table is a-ok.

(4) Ranked strats: if you want an answer, ask me since there are damn too many strats a team can go for.

(5) Cheap shots: If it has a voter, they are voters. It's up to the other team to say why they don't count.

(6) K FWs: Whoever does the better debating on the interpretation is what I will go with in the round.

(7) Views on T: That's on you. But halfway through the year I may or may not stop buying “setting the standard for the year” args out of principle lol

(8) CP threshold: Honestly I don't have much experience with deeper CP theory. but as long as you keep your theory organzied, i will likely be able to follow

(9) Teams enjoyed: Clovis North HP (s/o to the teams from schools that only fund speech, ayy), Centennial KK, John Spurlock. Clean, organized, and tasteful sass, and damn good at what they do.

(10) Offense/Defense vs Reasonability: That's on you. If y'all do a shitty job on the standards debate, i will likely say fuck it and default to reasonability. Unless the aff is actually unreasonable. :thinking:


 * FRAMEWORK**

Frame the framework by indicating what interpretation of debate you desire and why that is net beneficial for debate. Think of fw like a cp - give me your interp of debate, how you solve it, and hit me with those nice and clear net benz.

How I feel about things such as selfish RoBs, etc. is determined by what you tell me how I should feel about them.


 * KRITIK**

I dig it. I’m as dense as a brick, so regardless of the K I’m gonna need a good overview explaining your jam.

__ALTS__

Everyone has a spicy alt like "giving back the land" or "revolutionary suicide" What i need to know is __HOW YOU PERFORM YOUR ALT__. Are you literally giving back the land to the natives? how are you committing revolutionary suicide in this liberal as heck debate space? this stuff should be explained.

Even if you're not performing your alt (which is ok i guess i mean how else are we gonna spread the word and run death good), why is your method good/better than the other team's method?

btw, if your alt is literally just "reject the aff" and that will spillover to 100% capitalism solvency with no further explanation, i may involuntarily gag

__THOUGHTS ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF Ks__

(1) Cap: A staple in the policy diet, I can easily understand it as long as there is a good explanation of the alt

(2) Nietzsche: I was the 1n that spent his time finding links for my partner that can literally **(literally.)** only go for Nietzsche. At the last leg of our careers wanted to run death good, but ever could :(

(3) Security: another staple. At one point I ran a security-based satire aff semi-seriously (now isn't that ironic)

(4) Biopower: never had to deal with this kind of k. if you run it, explaining your stuff would be much appreciated

(5) Race: probs the one I’m most comfortable with, ran a myth of the model minority/antiblackness aff senior year.

(6) Queer: literally never ran it, was never run against me, and only judged one debate on it. for the love of god, guide my lost soul in a meaty overview

(7) French philosopher soup of the day: overviews pls ty

(8) Language Ks: lost on it once and am angry

(9) Ableism: absolutely


 * THEORY THEORY THEORY**

==For the love of all that is holy, slow down on this shit... I have a very hard time following theory debates that are just blasting at full speed. If you do this and ask why my decision is incomplete, this will be why.==

(1) For organizational purposes I would follow much easier if you put your theory in this fashion:

Interpretation: The rule Violation: How they broke it Standards: Why that’s bad Voters: Why that’s an aff/neg ballot

This will also let me know if you’re serious or if you’re going for some dirty communist cheap shot - I see so many theory debates where y'all are just blasting lines at each other, doing no form of impact calc to your theory. That shit is not appreciated.

(2) Apparently dispo has different definitions? I learned it as “they cannot kick if it’s straight turned.” Therefore if you complain about dispo without offering an interpretation, then I’ll assume this definition. Full disclosure, this interpretation of dispo is top tier and pretty fair imo.

(3) Some violations aren’t big enough to warrant a loss; rather, a concession. I will totally buy it if you say “ok, we’ll kick T if they rescind their no link arguments.”

(4) As you may be able to tell, I am a big fan of theory that DOES NOT operate in a vacuum. You’d be surprised what you can do with T-subs and a spending DA.

(5) In-round abuse stories are very convincing. Similarly, not having one makes your theory unconvincing.

(6) judge kicking: the more autonomy you give me over our RFD the more unhappy you'll be with my decision :P

(7) "the status quo is always an option" in the words of Scott Philips, this is just a jackass way of saying you're condo pls stop


 * SPEAKER POINTS**

Speaks are __**organization**__ + ethos

I don't know how judges are able to make the tenth's distinction, so this will be a ballpark estimate. Understand that in general, I am a gracious man. Speed does not play a role in speaks; audibility and fluidity is first and foremost, followed by the funnies. HAVE SOME PERSONALITY, THAT HELPS YOUR SPEAKS LOTS.

However, being an asswagon will severely drown your speaks. Being sassy/joking is fine, but if you're making the entire 2 hour experience we share extremely awkward with your salt, then that just ain't right.

I am impartial to all spreading styles except for the "booming and committing verbal genocide" style and the "spread at 0.05dB for the card text so no one can possibly tell I'm clipping xD" style.

30: forgive me heavenly father for i have sinned 29: somewhere along the top speakers this tourney 28: probably in the top half of the speakers this tourney 27: i can hear most of what you say, and delivery is acceptable 26: words were spoken 25: bruh 20: either running/losing on rape/racism good

I don't like shaking hands, btw. ppl get hella **moist**