Hinojoza,+Justin

I'm a former LD debater who graduated in 2005. I coached for 5 years out of high school and I'm coming back to the activity after a 2 year hiatus. So to the nitty gritty:


 * Who wins?** The ballot is a tool to let the tab room know who I thought was "the better debater." For me LD is about whether the resolution is true or false. If the aff proves the resolution true, they've done their job and should win. If the negative is able to poke enough holes in the aff advocacy or present other compelling arguments which prove the resolution to be false, they win. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

__"a priori":__ I'm sick of debaters thinking that Latin is a substitute for actual argumentation. If you're going to label something as a priori the argument had better a) actually be independent of experience b) provide reasons why a priori knowledge/arguments are better than a posteriori.
 * Positions:** I'm happy to listen to a wide range of arguments. The only things I require are a framework for evaluating arguments and then impacts to those arguments. I'm especially fond of deductive argumentation where clear premises are presented and then supported. Multiple advocacies: Not a problem for me. BUT, the debater running them must explain how they interact with each other, what happens if the debater loses one and wins another, is one more important than another, etc. I want debaters to pay attention to the layers their positions create even if those layers are as simple as Criterion-Contentions.


 * Critical Positions:** I definitely appreciate debaters engaging the resolution directly and, since most critical arguments are run by negatives, providing reasons to reject the resolution on face. As for in-round stuff, I'm simply not willing to vote for it. Even were someone to be horribly sexist/racist/classist whatever, they could still fulfill their burden as the affirmative/negative. Of course debaters who are offensive can't expect to get even remotely good speaker points but if someone spends 6 minutes in the AC proving the resolution true while goose stepping and extolling the virtues of a 4th Reich they could still win with 0 speaks.


 * Theory:** There is a place for theory in LD but, for years, LDers have simply misappropriated theory from policy and it doesn't make sense! To me theory is useful to establish which arguments actually affirm/negate. I will not vote on theory but I'm willing to ignore/exclude arguments based on theoretical objections.

__Standards:__ I don't care about fairness, education, ground or predictability. I will not accept/reject arguments based on these standards or vote on impacts to these standards

What's left, you ask? Well, you can exclude arguments on logical grounds. For instance: suppose an aff runs a plan text, you could point out that they're only affirming a specific instance of the resolution and hence the aff case is an exception to the larger rule that the resolution is false.


 * Speed:** I can flow extremely quickly but I will never tell you if you are being unclear, speed is a strategic decision which sometimes backfires. I will never call for cards which I could not understand because of speed/clarity issues: it didn't happen if I didn't hear it. I will only call for cards if there has been a dispute over content or meaning which requires my adjudication (or if I think you're plagiarizing or manipulating evidence).


 * The Nutshell:** I want to see warranted arguments which exhibit good logical reasoning. I place high value on intellectual honesty; don't try and sell me silly stories weaved together from blippy one liners. The debater who'll win my ballot is the one who can provide a clear logical story which proves the resolution true/false.


 * Speaker Points:** In this world of point inflation if you do a decent job you can expect to get a 27 or 28.