Rosa,+Oscar

Overview: 7 years experience in policy debate. I debated 4 years during high school, and two at CSUF, with three years coaching policy debate. //Clear // speed is ok. Tag team is ok. Prep doesn’t stop until the flash drive leaves your computer. I prefer for both teams to use arguments that they enjoy using since this always makes each debate round stand out. I make my decisions based on the quality of the arguments that are presented. This means that I do not mind you reading a lot of cards as long as you impact them and prove to me why you should win the debate round. __**Tradition****al**__ **__aff__:** I'm good with this form of debating, I did this for most of my high school career so I will be able to understand your arguments effectively. Just remember to extend your arguments effectively through the debate round and I will consider this a good debate round. **__K aff:__** I will evaluate this form of debate like if it were a policy debate, but under any framework that you ask me to. At the end of the day do you, and I will weigh your impacts based on how you want me to do so in the round. I will vote for your aff as long as my flow shows that you are winning the debate round. Also remember to impact your arguments, and persuade me to vote for you. I will vote on it as long as you make the decision clear for me. Just uttering the words “role of the ballot” is not sufficient--- // why // should the role of the ballot be what you have suggested it to be? Affs should also argue why the aff is // sufficiently debatable // (negs should argue to the contrary), not merely why the aff is important to discuss. As the negative team try to have some form of clash or something that solves for the affirmative either topical version of counter method that solves for them. If you just run Framework that's fine, but you have to win the rests of the arguments too. **T **---T is a question of //should// the aff be topical. If you aren't reading cards on T, then you're doing it wrong. I will vote on it if you do a good job on it, do not expect me to vote on T, if it's clear that you are using it only as a time skew. **Theory:** I'll vote on it if convinced on your argument. Reject the arg not the team is generally sufficient to resolve most other theoretical objections. If this argument is not made, I'll defer to the other team's interp on what I should do with the suspect arg (ie, reject the team). **CP/DA's:** I'm good with these and will vote on them if you persuade me to do so. Just make sure that it is competitive with the Affirmative and that you do prove to me why I should vote on it. This also applies to the affirmative team, persuade me as to why your affirmative is better.

**K:** I've used them a lot before so I'm familiar with the language used and will vote on it if convinced that I should do so. Make sure that you do impact calculus so that I can know whether to prefer the impacts of the aff or the K first. Also make sure that the Alternative and Links are explained throughout the debate round, this makes the round flow smoother.

**Other Stuff:** -ask me questions before the round or after if you need more clarification on my decision or args, etc. -I value analytics as much as evidence as long as it is explained well enough, and if you make it obvious that it does answer the cards. -I like rounds where there is quality over quantity, however I will weigh all arguments equally. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">-I consider myself fair on the speaker points that I give, just perform at your best, and don't be over agressive towards the other teams. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">-Respect me, your opponents, and the physical space you are debating in <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">If you have any other questions, ask me before the round or email me at: oscar.rosa44@gmail.com