Jalbuena,+Erica

I'm Erica Jalbuena. I'm currently a senior and varsity debater at George Mason University. This is my third year in debate.

**First things first**, I have done and enjoy both critical and policy debate, so do what you're comfortable with. No matter what style you utilize, just make sure that it is explained well. Even if I know what your argument is, I will only vote on how you articulate it. This is a communication activity, so do not forget that you have to be persuasive. I flow, and I will vote on the flow.

I don't often call for evidence. I'll call for evidence if I think you have a really sweet card (which won't be evaluated off of that) or if there's a dispute on the warrants or quality of a card important to the debate, but otherwise I see it as bordering on intervention to call for cards and interpret them if I didn't clearly hear them in the round. If I do call for evidence and I can't connect it to my flow you should probably learn your evidence better.

I show many facial expressions while judging, but I typically end up looking down at my flow writing the entire time to make sure I get as much as possible. If I do look up, don't get discouraged, I want to listen to your explanation. I will try as best as I can to follow your arguments.

**Second**, generally, I give speaker points based on a few criteria:

**First - Make smart arguments. You don't need to be the fastest speaker to get high speaks with me. I would rather you explain things and be smart over trying to show off.**
 * Second - Organization. I don't want a cluster of arguments spewed onto my flow. Don't mess it up. **
 * Third - Clarity. My director of debate is Warren Decker. BE CLEAR. **
 * Fourth - Efficiency. Allocate your time wisely, you will probably be able to tell when I'm getting bored if you're spending too much time on something. **
 * Fifth - Ethos. Persuade me. This is a communicative activity, I just want you to learn how to be well spoken. Be passionate, make it seem like you actually want to be here debating. **
 * Sixth - BE NICE AND RESPECTFUL TO YOUR PARTNER/OPPONENTS/ME. You're all here to have fun, don't take yourself too seriously. **

I don't care about profanity in moderation and when appropriate. If your speech ends up being a slew of cursing with some arguments in between and it isn't related to your specific argument (or the other team deserves it), I will tank your speaks and probably tell you after the round. Being blatantly offensive is not acceptable. By that, I don't mean linking to a rhetoric K or anything like that, I mean saying something that is legitimately offensive to the other team and you don't seem to care. I'll either look angrily at you or interrupt you. That's a sign that your speaks have been bottomed out with no chance of redemption. Be sensitive of gendered/homophobic/racist/ableist language. I will talk to you about it after the round if not already addressed within the round, just so you're aware.

In **cross-x**, I have no problem with being very indignant or aggressive. It's a high intensity activity and it typically comes across as somewhat competitive to me, but that's not a free pass to be rude and domineering. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be a smart ass if you can pull it off, I'll enjoy that. Don't get caught up on one thing in cross x that is a dead end or been adequately answered, it will reflect upon your speaker points.

I don't mind small talk throughout the round. I don't want to be just a fly on the wall. But don't think that gets you anything.

**Case** - It's only detrimental to not have a fleshed out case debate. Both the aff and neg seem to under utilize the aff case in high school debate. Uniqueness questions for advantages, internal link defense, impact defense, internal link turns, impact turns. You have so many options.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**K affs** - I want a clear explanation of your method or intentional lack thereof. Framing of the round is important. You're re-situating my ballot to mean something outside of the norm of debate, you should probably detail why that's important. I have yet to really hear an offensive reason why permutations shouldn't be allowed in a methodologies debate when the neg frames the round that way, so neg teams be sure to answer the perm unless you can articulate why perms shouldn't matter. There needs to be an offensive reason why the affirmative either fits into, should be interjected into, or entirely abandons the topic. Protip: You probably aren't going to win defining words in the resolution on framework ("Resolved=Reduce by mental analysis" and "USFG means the people" aren't really round winners). If you have a defensible counter-interpretation like "the aff should be in the direction of the topic" and do the work to defend it, you can likely convince me that you aren't all that abusive. If you don't have a counter interp and reject the topic I'm a little more receptive to framework, but you can win that framework is bad.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**FW** - Framework can end up interesting or boring and stale. If you go for the procedural/fairness portion of framework, I want to hear a list of what kind of unpredictable cases the aff justifies, what arguments you lose, why those arguments are important/good to debate (if the aff wins that the arguments you lose are epistemologically bad, why should I evaluate them?) and why fairness is good. Winning T version solves the aff will likely mitigate most or all aff offense unless they're blatantly not at all within the topic. Going for T version, you should have justifications for policymaking being good, legal discussions being good, and some sort of external impact. T version makes sense to me as a CP or methodology debate, that makes it a lot simpler for you to frame that debate.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**DA's** - Impact calculus impact calculus impact calculus. Why does the DA outweigh case? Does it turn case solvency or impacts? Is there a link? What's the threshold for the aff triggering the link? Is the DA unique? These are all the basic questions that should be answered for me throughout the debate. Mitigate the aff case or solve the aff with a CP and it's done. Aff, when answering DA's, you should answer all of those questions as well, but the opposite way. Remember, you have an aff. It has impacts. Tell me why those are more important.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**CP's** - Be competitive. Have an offensive net benefit (solving better isn't much of a net benefit or one at all). If the Aff/CP debate ends up close, flag the presumption voter and outline which direction it goes.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Kritik's** - Read whatever K you would like BUT be warned you need to explain it well. Winning the K is all about spin. Unless you've cut some great specific link and impact cards, chances are your K doesn't specifically criticize the aff, so tell me how it does. Do the right impact framing and win the role of the ballot. If you can set up a uniqueness story to turn your K into a DA, by all means kick the alt or tell me to boot the alt for you if the aff wins no alternative solvency. I'm familiar with most K's, I would like to say I'm fairly read up/most familiar with gender studies. Cap, Fem, and Queer theory were my bread and butter at some points during my debate career. In the past year, I've read a bit of critical race lit, (ie Wilderson's Red, White and Black) as well as some random high theory lit (ie Baudrillard's Simulation and Simulacra). Aff, don't let the neg get away with their vague hipster explanations using buzzwords. Too many high school teams seem intimidated by K's or just do it because they think it's cool without fully understanding it. No. I am a firm believer in debaters needing to learn how to debate before they can read K's or critique it. Do not go for a K you don't understand in front of me. I want explanations.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Topicality** - Chances are I'm not well read on the topic. I worked at Mason's high school camp this summer and cut a file for the starter files but that's all. This means you should provide detailed analysis of what the topic should look like. I default to competing interps, but I'm partial to reasonability. I like to hear a good T debate, but I'm not going to say "don't run T as a timesuck" because that's just inevitable. Your interpretations establish a particular vision of the topic. Give me a clear case list for that topic. Give me a T version of the aff. Give me a list of lost neg ground. In round abuse? Should I vote on potential abuse? Should I prefer fairness or education? Why?

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Procedurals** (Specs) - I'll vote on them. I think that ASPEC tends to be relevant given the popularity of agent CP's. I'll roll my eyes at OSPEC but if it's won it's won. Hearing a topic specific specification with an in depth description of why that's relevant to having ground to a particular portion of the topic that provides unique education will be incredibly interesting to me.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Theory** - Have an interpretation. Chances are that I won't pull the trigger on all conditionality being bad always. Should PIC's have to be functionally and textually competitive? You have to articulate the link to your argument. What did the other team do that's abusive? And if you want it to be a reason to reject the team, you have to impact it and explain how it impacted the round or establishes a bad precedent for debate. If no one says anything on it, I'll default to T outweighing theory, it's a gateway issue. Remember to slow down in theory debates.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">When I debate, I have the mindset of the debaters being in charge of how I write my ballot, I encourage you to do that as well. Whether you have to force my hand or you wax eloquently about your position is up to you. But I cannot stress it enough that **I will vote on the flow.**

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I stop prep when the flash drive comes out of your computer or when the email is sent. It's your burden of being paperless to be efficient with it. I don't want my time wasted or yours because it cuts into your RFD time. If you're having computer issues, the screen has to face me.


 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Random aesthetic side notes: **


 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-Don't hide behind your computer, make eye contact with me. You're trying to win my ballot, not your computer's. **
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-Don't try to go faster than you are. It only makes you sound unclear or choppy. **
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-At least try to look like you're enjoying yourself. **


 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Final note: I really do believe that debate is some of the best education a student can get, I am here to help you learn as well so please do not hesitate after rounds to ask me questions. **

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Any questions, email me. ericajalbuena@gmail.com.