Salamanca,+Juan

Juan Salamanca FIU 3 years of high school policy and current parliamentary debater

__Style__ I'm fine with speed as long as the debaters slow down significantly during tags and authors. I also want to hear clear voting issues in the rebuttals.
 * On Policy**

__Kritikal Arguments__ By default I believe that policy should be about (surprise) finding the best policy option, however, I do like Ks, even if they're harder for me to accept. So Affirmative teams that want to run a K aff in front of me, then please present a theoretical justification as to why I should listen to you at all at the top of your case. Negative teams have a bit more flexibility in this regard (i.e. just run them like you normally do.) As a whole, I'd prefer if both teams clearly explained the K in the rebuttals. Affirmative teams: don't just run theoretical arguments against Ks, you're better off defending your underlying assumptions with me. I want actual //debate//.

__Theory__ You'd be well advised not to run theory unless it's egregiously terrible abuse that's going on. I won't buy RVIs: no abuse simply means I should just throw out the theory arguments. I really hate pulling the trigger on theory, so you better do a good job persuading me.

__Topicality__ I'm fine with T. I don't like RVIs on T. That's basically the extent of it.

__Disads__ I like realistic disads. Negatives should have excellent link stories to back them up.

__Analytics__ I like analytic arguments quite a bit, especially with kritiks. I won't buy "well my card's author has a PhD, so prefer him" arguments. Make actual analysis in the rebuttal speeches (don't just say "extend so and so cards.") I give them more weight than you might think.

//anything not covered here simply means that you presume that I am tabula-rasa about them.//

Keep the debates V:VC please. Neg has a bit more flexibility in that they can run Ks, but give me good theoretical justification for them. I don't like NIBs. I don't like theory in LD, unless it's clear abuse that's going on. Otherwise, I will give you 24.5s. Not kidding.
 * On LD**

Make sure you actually refute your opponents case in your speeches after the first one. Don't be sleazy in the final focus and introduce new arguments. Don't just be like "Oh yeah, well, where's your EVIDENCE for that argument?!" because I will hate you forever. Make actual, substantial analysis. I don't mind speed as long as the opponents don't mind. If they do mind, and you spread anyway, then it will be reflected in your speaker points. I like to give detailed oral critiques at the end of rounds. I'll actually be impressed if you guys end up reading this.
 * On PF**

I'm a bit of a prep time fascist. When prep time ends, pens down, hands off the keyboard (unless its for flashing your stuff to another computer.)
 * Prep Time**

If you're still reading, congratulations, you get nothing. However, if you read this, and you also cleverly incorporate "DANGER ZONE" in your speeches, then I will give you 30 speaks. No questions asked. Not even joking. Like for real. SUPPRESSING FIRE