Fernandes,+Christopher

Christopher Fernandes
I've judged high school debate for about 15 years now, and I've traveled the national circuit extensively both as a competitor, judge and coach. Feel free to debate anything you wish in front of me, I've probably heard it before. That said, I have not judged the current topic extensively, so I might be a little unfamiliar with some of the topic-specific jargon: be mindful of that. In terms of speaker points, a 27-27.5 is my average and very rarely give a 30. Your attitude and decorum very much reflects in awarding speaker points. If I can't understand you during a speech, I will yell out CLEAR. If I find myself yelling out more than twice, your points will probably be negatively affected. Tag team cross-ex is fine...but again, the less you participate in the cross-ex you're supposed to lead, the greater likelihood your speaker points will be affected.

A very good debate consists of a lot direct argumentation with plenty of comparative analysis. For me, comparative analysis consists of: claim (the position you are asserting)-warrant (the reason why that position is true)-context (why this opinion matters). I'm probably not the most theory or K friendly judge you'll see on the circuit, but I've judged numerous rounds engaging in those subjects. I tend to be very flow-oriented, so it would be in your best interest to roadmap well, signpost effectively, and deliver clearly. I'm one of those old-school debaters who still flows with pen and paper so having good organization skills are key- I can't just cut and paste your arguments onto the correct flow during cross-ex. Also, I generally avoid reading cards at the end of the round unless absolutely necessary- this is very important. I will usually value the analysis of the debater over the card author.

I place a LOT of weight on the 2NR/2AR in making my decision: at the top of these speeches, please provide me the framework on how I should evaluate the round and then how the debate fits within that framework (presumably, where your side wins). Not providing an overview on top of the 2NR/2AR is certainly not a dealbreaker, but it requires me to be more interventionist that I'd like.

Specific arguments/positions:

Topicality: I used to be a topicality hack so I'm up for any interpretation. I generally don't buy "reasonability" in topicality, but limits is also not the end-all-be-all in a topicality debate. I'm a fan of either 5 minutes of T in the 2NR or none at all.

Kritiks/Performance: I've grown to enjoy kritiks over time, and I think it can be a fabulous and complex debate. I also have no objections to performance-style debate. Please note that I tend to think pragmatically rather than philosophically: in debate speak, I'm more functional than theoretical. Though I try to remain as unbiased as possible, an argument couched in workability and realistic scenarios probably better exploits my bias than a kritik of language.

Example: a kritik of "you increase biopower, that's bad" functionally sounds like a disad to me. A kritik of "the affirmative makes a flawed assumption that interpolitical relationships between parties have no effect on solvency and/or the harms" sounds like a good kritik to me. Notice you've made the same argument, but I am probably inclined to vote on the latter argument much more than the former.

Counterplans: I'm a fairly modern judge since I believe the affirmative is a defense of the plan, not a defense of the resolution. I'm ok with topical counterplans, PECs (plan exclusive counterplans) and the like. I'm not a huge fan of PICs, mainly because the permutation "do both" is generally a complete answer to the counterplan. I'm happy to answer more theory questions if need be.

I hope this gives you some insight on my judging philosophy. As always, if you have any additional questions, feel free to ask me.