Pedroso,+Roberto

I debated on the national circuit for four years during high school. I have competed on all levels of debate, and am now a freshman at the University of Chicago.


 * __Framework__**

I prefer comparative positions to be provided by both debaters. So, naturally, I will default to a comparative-worlds paradigm unless given reasons to accept truth-testing or whatever other paradigm you choose to advocate. This is not to say that I have a higher threshold for other paradigms: I will accept whichever interpretation wins.

Ideally, each debater will articulate some sort of framework so that I am not forced to intervene. I have no preference for value/criterion frameworks vs. burdens vs. //a prioris// vs. performances, so long as I have some means of judging the round.

I love all arguments and do not care what type you use. However, do not take that as an excuse to run your squirreliest, most incoherent positions in front of me. While I appreciate cleverness and nuance, I detest shoddily put-together amalgamations of continental philosophers spouting about existence and moral skepticism. That said, I love well-researched, highly thought-out, and cleverly run positions of this sort. Use your best judgment.

__**Speed/Delivery/Tech**__

I was a debater once, and so I do not particularly care how fast you speak. More importantly, you ought to enunciate and speak loudly enough to be heard. Anything I cannot hear because of your delivery I will consider as not having been said.

Extensions mean reiterating a claim, a warrant and an impact. I will be more sympathetic if you forget the claim; however, should you not extend the warrant or impact, the argument gets crossed out on the flow. Also, if you extend one warrant, that does not mean you extended any other warrants as well. The general rule is simple: if you did not say it in your last speech, it was never said.

I like weighing. I think weighing makes the difference between a decent debater and a good debater. Absent weighing, when resolving disputes between two opposite claims, I default to whichever warrant has been in the round longer. I.e., I'll take an argument i heard in the NC over an argument in the 1AR. However, good weighing would make that unnecessary.

I'm generally kind with speaker points. I start off at a 29, and go up or down from there. Particularly talented debaters will get 29.5-30, whereas mistakes will reduce your speaker points. I will never go below a 27 unless something severe warrants it.

__**Theory**__

I'm perfectly fine with theory, with two caveats:

First, I need to hear a fully articulated shell, and the shell needs to be extended. I will not vote on theory unless you tell me why it comes before other arguments. It is conceivable that you might win some theory argument about severance but lose an a priori with a warrant for coming before theory. Do not assume, make the argument.

Second, you have to slow down when reading theory. Theory is almost purely analytics and very concisely developed, making them way harder to flow. The same rule as always applies: if I could not flow it, you never said it.

Aside from those two caveats, any theory you wish to run is okay.

__**Conclusion**__

You are the debaters. You need to tell me how I ought to frame and evaluate the round. Then, you need to tell me why I ought to vote for you. Do so in a matter accordingly with everything I said above, and you will come out of the round with good speaker points at the very least. I am a very open minded person who highly appreciates cleverness, and will take just about anything you throw at me.