Martinez,+PJ

History: Debated at Mercedes High School for 4 years. Debated at the University of North Texas for 1 year. Coach at Coppell High School. Email: peejay.mtz@gmail.com

Short version: I'm open to most arguments as long as they are well impacted. That usually seems to be the answer people are looking for. Ask questions before the round.

Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves the computer. I'm already bored and I haven't even started judging, the debate round will take forever if I give you a bunch of time to flash evidence.

Specific stuff: Topicality - I like good T debates. I default to competing interpretations. Negatives should invest lots of time here because you need to win a good standard for why the other team is untopical/why they should lose to get me to vote on T. With respect to kritikal teams that read plan texts, I'm not very receptive to Kritiking topicality unless there is a good argument intrinsic to the aff. That means read more than just the Bleiker card.

Theory - these aren't my favorite debates to judge, but this mostly because teams tend to speed through their blocks instead of picking the best (sometimes true) arguments that are reasons to reject particular arguments. I tend to believe that counterplans that solve the entire aff (i.e. Consult counterplans, conditions, whatever could be normal means, etc.) are cheating. I'm not ideological about this, so feel free to debate otherwise. Conditionality is the only argument, I think, that I would vote on as a reason to reject the team. I default to competing interpretations in these debates, so read one and defend it.

Disads - Read them. Invest time in good impact calculus and smart turns the case arguments. I'll vote on "fiat solves the link" on politics disads if there is a good amount of time spent on it.

CPs - I like them. If you're reading a counterplan that isn't very popular, or only your team has it, it would be cool if you slowed down on the plan text, so I can hear exactly what it does. Read the theory portion above for stuff about cheating counterplans.

Ks - These are what I have the most experience debating/coaching. I like judging these debates when they are good, I would prefer if you didn't read them/go for them without a decent understanding of how it works just because I like them. You're better off going for strategies you know better. I understand most theory popular in debate, but that should not preclude you from thoroughly explaining how the K interacts with the aff. This should be done by the block. I should have a clear understanding of how the alternative works and the intricate link/internal-link/impact claims that should "turn and outweigh the case". I'm not particularly inclined to let you tell me to "not weigh the aff" at all, but it's not impossible. Generally you're better off reading impact defense and internal link takeouts on the case debate, and make smart turns case arguments.

K affs - Plan: Should probably have a good framing mechanism in the 1AC, or have a means of problematizing disad/counterplan logic in there. I find myself voting for the CP/DA strat against affs like this often. No plan: They're cool. I prefer if they had something to do with the topic, I mean that just seems "fair" and "predictable" (ha). I will vote on framework, so having good arguments that are intrinsic to the aff about why your knowledge production is good is critical (ha, again).

Policy affs - don't forget your aff. The best way to answer Ks generally is to defend the aff. That means defending your epistemology/knowledge production/internal link chain and to win the aff outweighs. I find that many rounds I judge, I sit around waiting for the aff to do impact calculus in the 2ar so that I can sign my ballot.

Speaker points: you'll get good points if you do good impact work and make smart turns the aff/DA/K arguments. You'll also get good speaks if you win the debate, recognize that you've won early in the debate, and use a minimal amount of speech time proving it.

Have questions? Feel free to ask before the round.