Holguin,+Alex

I’m a Varsity Debater for Liberty University – 1.5 years of Policy Debate Experience.

I know it says Liberty U, but I am way more comfortable judging Kritikal arguments then Policy arguments. That being said, I will judge either side of debate to the best of my ability. Speed is fine, so long as you are clear. If you’re not clear, I’ll give your arguments far less credibility by the end of the round which may prevent you from winning. It turns out that I am VERY impressionable. I view Debate as a combination of both Persuasion and Efficiency. This is an argumentative competition, not a speed reading competition. I think most Debaters are taught (At least in Policy) to be efficient, but they usually lack persuasive ability. Winning an argument is not always persuasive; Inflection, Clarity, Appropriatly placed gestures, etc. go a long way in making you look and sound persuasive. If you are a powerful (and quick) speaker, then your speaks will get a huge lift. Relating your argument to a common or historical event helps “sell” that argument. Combined with Efficiency, this is what makes really good debaters (I.E. – Good Speaker Points). You can be fast and persuasive, but if you are only fast and you sound boring then you make the debate boring for everybody involved. Don’t drop arguments – a dropped argument is a true argument. Pretty much always. I will do work after the round, but I will never do more work than what is explicitly on the flow. (I will read cards, etc.) That being said, here are my biases on more specific arguments. And if you’re funny, be funny. If you’re not, don’t try to be, because you run the risk of looking like a jerk. Just do what you do!


 * Topicality** – Really Slow down for this. If I can’t understand your specific standards and violations then I don’t know why I would vote for it. Another thing to keep in mind is that in my history as a Policy-2N I never went for T; I am not well versed in it so you have to do a little extra work to win me on it. I also lean AFF on most arguments.


 * Framework** – Fairness is not always an impact; more often than not it is an internal link to education. Framework is a reason I evaluate your impacts. I don’t think this is a good strat against kritikal affs. Forcing a team to defend the resolution is a tougher sell in front of me. Not impossible, but uphill for sure. I view the round as a discussion of the topic, not necessarily a discussion of the resolution.


 * CP’s** – Love counterplans. It is the most “legal” way in debate to be abusive. I think PIC’s, especially when it is out of a word or two, can merit some abuse. But literally everything else (So long as there is a net benefit, whether it is external or internal) is winnable in front of me. Make sure to slow down on the CP text so I know what it is you’re doing. (Note* - run Advantage Counterplans. Personal favorite.)


 * DA’s** – Gotta love a good old disad throw down. However, if you are having a throw down, be very clear on what are tags and what are cards. I can get most of everything if you’re gonna fly through cards but I cannot stress good clarity enough. Oh, and multiple impacts are awesome. Unload on Impacts in the 2NC/1NR and the 1AR will hate you, but I might think it's hilarious. Lastly, you can win on a generic link, but keep in mind, a good AFF throw down in the 2AR means you can lose on a generic link. Be aware.


 * K’s** – Love. You have to do a little more work, because it’s a k. Win what the role of the ballot is, why your impact outweighs and how a specific action they do links, and your fine. I don’t think you need to win the alternative debate, but I think if you lose that side it grants them a lot of credence on other flows. Side note, if they run a kritikal aff, running a one-off k effectively makes for an awesome debate. Also, don’t run a Cap Kritik conditionally. Contradictions are bad.
 * (11/29/2011 Update*)** - RUN K’s. I want to hear them, I like them better than other arguments and I myself am now a K-Debater. If you don’t want to run them, and/or they are not your forte then, sure – go for what you do. Just know that I lean Kritikal myself and those are debates I would like to be a part of. If you are running multiple arguments and the K, unless you are really good or confident on that K, I understand you not going for it. Just make sure to beat out the theory. I’ve voted for and against the K so don’t think the fact that it is in the round is enough to pick up my vote.


 * Theory** – I’m a 2N, so in kritikal debates I think perms are cheating. I’m also a 1AR, so by extension I know the utility of exploding a ‘secret perm’ in that speech. Conditionality is terrible. But in policy debates I think it’s usually fine. Don’t be abusive. And make sure to answer it. I once learned there is a fine line between whining and winning in a theory debate.


 * Random arguments (ASPEC, etc.)** – are fine and can be strategically used to press the 2AC and/or 1AR for time. But unless there over-covering everything else and dropping that, I probs won’t vote for it.


 * Speaker Points** – Make me laugh, persuasive analytics that poke holes in the inconsistences of their args, stories of how your DA/CP/K/AFF world interacts with their arguments and what it would look like with/without those arguments all merit high speaks. Being mean to other people in the round and saying offensive things will tank your speaker points. I don’t think it will be hard to get high-ish speaks in front of me. Just debate well! Remember, I am impressionable. I want to enjoy this round as much as you want to. If we can all have a productive discussion about the merits of ______ in a persuasive, productive way, you will be rewarded.

If there is anything else you want to know about me, just ask.