Pena,+Ricardo

Hello, I have debated LD for 3 years in Edinburg Texas, and also i am currently debating NFA LD for Texas State University. I have competed in TFA and UIL competitions in Texas. I have also competed out of state for the University and participated in a couple TIFA tournaments in Texas as well. When in high school i attended UTNIF for 2 consecutive summers

I am not big on presentation at all. I am more of a "matter" instead of "manner" type of person. With this being said, i will only evaluate the arguments that you put on the table. You can present sitting down or standing up, it will not make any difference on how i will evaluate your arguments. Essentially, in front me, if you know that you can speak well but you can't produce good argumentation then i wish you the best of luck. (for example, one debater who had amazing organization and speaking skills lost because he didn't make a couple arguments where he needed to make them). With all the aforementioned info above, it is safe to assume that i am comfortable giving low point wins if that has to be the case. I am not big on keeping it "professional". This means that i will not give low speaks or vote you down for being condescending or just having a bad attitude in general. However, i will give low speaks for ad hominem's because, why waste speech time on arguments that hold no weight. i will also give low speaks to people who INTENTIONALLY offend their opponent.
 * Presentation:**
 * Attitude:

I am okay with speed as long as i can understand it (if there is something wrong with your speaking abilities then i don't recommend trying to spread). I will yell "clear" if i feel like you aren't clear enough or "speed" if i feel like you are going to fast.
 * Speed:**

I am okay with virtually any type of argument including policy args (e.g., K's, CP's, PIC's, Theory, etc.). However, i am very liberal and relaxed with arguments.. I do not believe in arguments that are just flat out wrong (even though many people don't hold the same belief and would disagree with me). You will not offend me unless you attack me, as the judge, directly. I f an argument happens to be offensive to you and is not intended to be so, don't bother bringing it up, i won't care. If you feel like you can prove intent then go for it, if intent is proven then i won't evaluate the offensive argument (the debaters sole purpose has to be offending you, if thats not their sole purpose then don't bother trying to prove intent). basically, Racist, Sexist, Bigoted, and other types of arguments will only be evaluated if and only if you give me good rational reasons as to why i ought to prefer them. If you try to prove in round abuse then make sure its really abuse. I don't mind you running conditional arguments. For me you don't have to disclose that an argument might be conditional (even though it would be nice for your opponent, but if they ask then don't lie to them). I don't mind if you just kick out of offense (this is also something that a lot of judges/debaters will disagree with me on). I feel like debate doesn't have any rules except for the time limits and any rules that are specified on any sort of documentation for the activity. With this being said, i don't care if you say "JK i don't really want to defend this position any more, I'm gonna kick it", or you can simply de-link your opponent from the arg and kick it. My advice for the side thats facing conditionality is to make the arguments on the pieces of evidence that your opponent needs in order to win his or her advocacy, because those arguments would not be wise to kick. So theory on conditionality will be very hard to win in front of me. i understand how there can sometimes be perceived evident abuse in conditional arguments, however, it is your job to attack all of the arguments they need to win or the arguments they can use to win. For conditionality to be abusive there has to be a clear argument that says and proves "it was virtually impossible to attack all the args that they could use to win", then and only then will you win theory on conditionality. I am a philosophy student so i am comfortable with dense philosophical arguments if you can explain them well. my advice on dense philosophy is go at an okay pace so i can be able to conceptualize what you are trying to say. I am not a fan of blippy arguments. if you address an argument and you say "X is bad because it erodes the quality of life" or if you just simply say "X is bad", i won't evaluate those arguments because they don't qualify as "arguments". If you make an argument, explain that argument to me. "X is bad because it does or results in Y", how does it result in Y, why is it bad, and why do i care? (ethnic cleansing is bad, why?: because it erodes the quality of life and life itself by killing and causing pain to human beings, why do i care?: because quality of life is the most important variable when trying to cultivate morality and happiness) answer me those questions when making an argument.
 * Arguments:**
 * Controversial Arguments:
 * Conditionality:
 * Philosophy:
 * Blippy Arguments

At the end of the round i evaluate the debate based on layers and offense and defense that is won on each layer. Usually i tend to lean more toward comparative worlds. I can also be a fan of truth-testing, but mostly i default to comparative worlds if you don't put forth good truth-testing arguments.
 * End of the Round Paradigm:**