Sabate,+Ignacio


 * Affiliation: Cypress Bay High School, Harvard University**
 * Background:** Debated in high school, not currently debating at Harvard, but I am coaching on the high school circuit.
 * Rounds on the Topic: 15**


 * General Philosophy:** Ultimately, you do you. You should feel free to run whatever you want in front of me. I believe that my job as a judge is to reward the team that makes the best and smartest arguments. I would much rather hear a good debate about a topic that is not of my particular interest as opposed to a muddled and confusing debate about arguments I like. In high school, I debated the K mostly, but many of my favorite debates were straight up politics, tricky counterplans, or T. Obviously, go for what you're good at--you're much more likely to win my ballot that way.


 * Framing:** I come into the round assuming that the affirmative should have some sort of advocacy. Of course, I can be persuaded otherwise if your arguments make sense. I don't have any kind of bias for or against plans/advocacies, but I believe that whatever route you take should be justified if the other team doesn't necessarily agree. Your job as a debater is to tell me how and //why// I should evaluate the round under a particular framework.

One word of caution, though: just like all judges, if your arguments are hella abstract, contextualization and examples go a long way to helping prove your point.


 * Topicality:** I default to competing interpretations. I can easily be convinced otherwise. If T is an argument you're going for, give me specific reasons as to why you're at a disadvantage. Examples, examples, examples.


 * Theory:** I default to rejecting the argument, not the team. Again, I can totally be convinced otherwise. I actually like good theory debates, but going for theory and doing a bad job of it won't do you too many favors.


 * Offense/Defense:** If you want me to evaluate a round like this, I think Nick Fiori sums it up pretty well, so I'll just copy paste: " I think offense/defense is mostly inevitable and that the arguments in the debate either fall into that matrix or change how they are evaluated. However, that does not mean I do not believe that a team cannot win zero risk of a scenario. My threshold is relatively high, but I find 100% defense argument increasingly persuasive." I think a defensive debate can be cool, but reading 25 cards indicting one part of the aff wouldn't be strategic.

**Experience this year:** Bronx is the first tournament I'm judging at. I've done some work with the topic, but you should be able to tell me what the aff does. Spitting out some random phrase like "MTPS resiliency" in the plan text/tagline literally means nothing to me; assume I have no idea what your plan does.

**Speed:** I'd say I'm a 7/10 or 8/10. If you go ballistic, I might not understand you. I tend to write down too much when I flow (especially when judging), so if you see me stop writing or something, I'm probably not listening. I'll yell clear twice for each team, if necessary. It's a good idea to start your speech a little slower so I can take a few seconds to get used to your voice; if it's early in the morning, really take this into consideration. If something you claim you said isn't on my flow, we can talk about it after the round, but ultimately my flow is the rule. Pro tip: warm up before rounds.

**Being nice:** do it. Don't say mean stuff, don't pretend like you're better than you are. If you say somethings exceedingly racist/sexist/homophobic/rude, there's a chance I'll drop you. Debate should be an open space. Really, just be a nice/funny/pleasant/whatever-you-are person.

**Speaks:** I give a "normal" distribution of speaks. Clear spreading, clear explanations, signposting, slower tags, good CX questions, clever strategic decisions, etc. will all earn you higher speaker points. Smart indicts, clash, and smart analysis will also get your far.


 * Final Words:** At the end of your day, try to make each debate a good experience. I think debate is a highly educational activity, and I like preserving that. If everyone leaves each round learning something or just having a cool experience, then you did a good job. In your final speeches, make it __**very**__ clear why you should win.

If you decide to send me your speech doc, I will not read your evidence. I'll just use it to double check author names. It's up to you to interpret your evidence for me.

If you have any questions, hit me up at ignaciosabate@college.harvard.edu