Sanchez.+Samuel

Background: Two years experience debating in HS, 4 plus years judging, and two years as head coach of Juarez HS in Chicago, and one year assistant coach at Phoenix Military Academy in Chicago.

Judge Philosophy:

I think that the judge's responsibility in the round is to be an unbiased spectator, and soley judge each and every round by what the debaters present. It is not the judges responsibility to put two and two together. I judge in debate rounds on each and every argument individually.

In terms of argument limitations, I will flow any and all argument.

My preferences are Kritik and Theory arguments, but, again, I will judge fairly on any argument in the round that is established, analyzed, and has impact.

What I think makes for a good affirmative is: a case that they can defend soley by the 1AC, and correctly use it to overturn, or outweigh, any negative arguments. The affirmative must understand their case completely at a level where defending the case is 2nd nature.

What I think makes for a good negative is: the negative is prepared not only with files but with the mindset that allows them to correctly argue against a case analytically and can use their opponents case cards for the benefit of the negative position. the negative can use generic evidence, but must prove why the evidence links directly to the affirmative case.