Bencosme,+Francisco

Wake Forest University '12 Bronx High School of Science '08 Last Updated: Summer of 2011
 * Bencosme, Francisco**

I will be cutting cards for Bronx Science giving me some familiarity with the topic but don't assume I know different arguments as in depth as you do.
 * Space Topic Background**

A. Performance. I can be persuaded that I should not vote on T, but my presumption is pretty strongly in favor of T. I have recently voted on performance style arguments mainly because framework is a debate where in most cases one side has had a lot more practice on it, but I still prefer hearing debates about topical actions centered around the resolution.
 * Topicality**

B. I default in terms of reasonable limits. Ground arguments are circular. That makes arguments about whether an interpretation is predictable of central importance. Focus on whether the interpretation matches the definition, or whether the interpretation is arbitrary and therefore unpredictable. I don't think T has anything to do with "abuse."

I lean towards a policy based curriculum. I believe most kritiks don't interact well against most cases and are usually outweighed by the affirmative harms. Often times they win by cheap shots (floating pics, extinction inev, vtl, ontology first) which I think a good affirmative team can beat back many of these arguments. That being said I did read kritikal arguments in high school ranging from Security, Neoliberalism to death cult. I even ran topical kritikal affs that often based their strategy on kritiking disads and CPs. That was the past and while I understand some of those arguments **not** all (Nietzsche, Heidegger, Baudrilliard) I prefer hearing specific case debates. I do evaluate topic specific kritik arguments in a higher light. In front of me Affs can win policy frameworks are good and a reason to disregard critical alternatives.
 * Kritiks vs Policy**

I lean negative towards PICs Good, 2NC CPs. I lean aff on utopian fiat,consult, condition CPs. 50 state fiat and international fiat is up in the air. I find logical decision making arguments persuasive. I have gone for theory arguments several times in the 2ar last year, and share Jarrod Atchisons concern of too many multiple conditional positions being in the 1NC. Default on rejecting the argument not the team but can be convinced otherwise. Presumption is against change.
 * CP Theory**

You can win zero risk of a disad. Lean on "link outweighs uniqueness" but will let the debaters decide that in the debate. When coaching I tend to enjoy doing a lot of politics disad work. I enjoy good quality politics debate. That being said I think politics disads can be heavily reduced by smart affirmatives by smart analytic arguments and good cross-x. Impact calculus is usually what most of the debate I've judged come down to.
 * Disads**

Tech over truth but do truth does play a factor.
 * Reading evidence** – I tend to read evidence on the most important issues in close debates. Evidence quality often strongly influences my decisions, but I try to let the debating guide my reading of evidence. Concessions of bad evidence are concessions, even if the evidence doesn’t say much. That being said, if a debate is very close and one side’s evidence is stronger, I am likely to vote for them.


 * During the debate-** Don't worry too much about facial cues from me during the debate. I will try my best as a judge to work hard during the debate, but inevitably I tend to nod off in really boring debates mainly because I stay up doing work the night before. If that does happen I apologize but simply try to get my attention and engaged in the debate.