Martinez,+Miguel

My last year in policy debate, I was a senior debating on the 2014-2015 Ocean Exploration and Development topic. I debated with Roberto Montero for the Bronx High School of Science. Together, we got to numerous bid rounds and received one bid to the TOC. That year, our biggest arguments centered around a linear combination of kritiks of the human and kritiks of the academy, thus I will always be unavoidably biased towards such arguments. Keep in mind that for a large portion of my debate career, I was trained to debate switch-side, so I still remember how to evaluate the politics debate and other such arguments.
 * Background:**

This is simple. You can be funny but don't be mean. If you're an experience team going against novices, don't intentionally mess with them to get your sick kicks.
 * Etiquette In-Round:**

Don't steal prep. Always provide a copy of evidence or in the case of paper, give it to the other team as evidence is read. Time both your own and the other team's prep. Time each other's speeches. Time everything. I will also be timing things, but I'm not the best with staying on my game when judging.

Bathroom breaks are not only okay but important. Be reasonable with leaving for water. Better yet, bring a reusable water bottle!

I believe that debate is primarily a persuasive activity. Basically, know whatever preconceptions I have and either work with or around them. Even if I say I will evaluate arguments from a "neutral" standpoint, the truth is the way I think about the way certain arguments function will inevitably be different from other people's interpretation of the same arguments. Thus, I expect both teams to explain their arguments in detail, no matter what degree of familiarity I have with the argument. Based on that, tagline extensions are probably not worthy of evaluation in the final rebuttals. I also do not expect to need to read cards at the end of the debate. If I didn't understand your argument from the way you explained it, that will most likely work against you. If either team truly believes I need to read a certain card, they should make it very clear in their rebuttals and I will draw my own conclusions from there. Furthermore, since debate is persuasive, if there is a hole in the debate that no one addressed, I will probably draw my own conclusions, which might not always work out in your favor.
 * tl;dr philosophy:**

So basically, treat me like I know absolutely nothing and don't make assumptions about my competence. Because of that, you can basically run whatever you want in front of me, just don't expect me to always make assumptions that work in your favor. Everything below is simply my predisposition and preference and are not absolute for the purposes of the round. I can always be persuaded by the flow

I'm good with reasonable speed. Take that with a grain of salt. If you're one of those really fast people, I suggest you tone it down for me on tags and in the later rebuttals. While speed is okay, I'm not cool with argument blips. If I don't catch the argument, it's over. However, if I miss part of an argument, and what I hear in later speeches roughly matches whatever understanding I have of that argument fragment, I'll assume it was that argument and let it go. Keep in mind that, while I try to flow author names, I usually fail. So, it would be a good idea to refer to arguments other than just by author.
 * Speed:**

I default to the interpretation that the aff has some advocacy that may or may not be topical and that the neg must prove that advocacy is a bad idea. While I think topical k affs are a good thing, I think I am able to feel both ways about the issue. I do not assume any higher purpose to debate other than education. If you think otherwise, you better make it clear.
 * Framework:**

While I default to the lens of competing interpretations, I will be grumpy if you run T on a reasonably topical aff. For example, saying we can't talk about NSA ops on the surveillance topic is highly illogical, but if the argument is actually there on the flow, I'll vote on it.
 * Topicality:**

I default to reject the argument not the team unless told otherwise. If there's no actual abuse there, you'll most likely lose the argument anyway. If the other team drops theory, I will not drop them just on that objection unless you do at least some work on it. Please slow down on T and theory.
 * Theory:**

Offense/defense is almost inevitable. I do believe that there can be a 0% risk of something. "Try-or-die" as an impact claim doesn't do much for me. Unless the card says extinction, do not claim it as an impact. I think that impact debates will be both more productive and more educational if everyone did that. I also think that there are easily many impacts worse than extinction and the idea that "everyone dies" is not where your magnitude calculus should end.
 * Impact Debates:**

In the spirit of the kritik, I think that kritik alternatives are a traditional debate construction imposed on k debaters. The kritik as a CP with a non-unique net benefit is not something I can truly say I grasp. Thus, I think that the alternative debate and the framework debate are most likely going to be very inextricably connected.
 * Kritiks:**

I do not think that all disadvantages that are run in debate are intrinsic. If you believe that as well, or if you just make the argument, and you explain it well in front of me, I would be willing to vote on it. I believe in 0% risk of the link in some cases.
 * Disadvantages:**

Have at 'em. I think "cheating" counterplans are legit if it is specific to the aff, not just to the topic. If you run a cheating counterplan and the solvency advocate is just about surveillance, that should be exploited by the other team because of a lack of explanatory power. Ergo, I do not think that all surveillance affs are the same. This holds true for kritiks as well, Kritiks are different, as even though I think topic links almost always apply, good analysis must be done on the part of the neg.
 * Counterplans:**

I do not actually believe that tricks exist. Rather, there are certain very cunning arguments that people can make against you. If those arguments exist and are grounded in the literature or worldview of the other team and can be applied to your case, you better be ready for them. However, these arguments characterized as "tricks" must be well-explained by the team running them. For example, if the aff drops the floating PIK, the neg must explain what that actually looks like and why it means they've won.
 * Tricks:**

30: You have reached debate Apotheosis. I don't think I have the right to assign such a number because I will never know nearly enough about debate. 29: I think you'll be in late elimination rounds. 28: You're better than a lot of the people I've seen. 27: You're pretty decent. You could work on some stuff. 26: You need to put in a lot of work. 25: You have been rude to people in the round. 24 or below: You've been truly offensive.
 * Speaker Points:**

This scale will obviously change when I'm evaluating JV or novice debates.