Rodriguez,+Cesar

I did three years of policy debate in High School and had experience coaching junior varsity members in PF and World Schools. Did a year of traditional policy and two years of critical/performance debate so yeh but I will vote on anything. Framing is critical to me as a judge whether you go for A disad or procedurals or a critique. If you do not frame the round I will vote based on how I saw the arguments in the round which may not always go in your favor even if you had the better arguments coming out of the block/constructives. That being said, although I am a critic, I will not restrict you and what you want to debate unless I find it to be particularly harmful or violent...so yeah literally run anything in front of me as long as you got the finesse to do it well. Also little things you may wanna know about me: This is my first time judging the topic, so I may have a higher T/FW threshold in terms of voting on it. Spread to your heart's content, but having a cadence will make you easier to flow. DAs - Love me some specific links, not a fan of spending/ptx but hey I'll vote on it. CPs - I like me a good CP. Run em well, especially in non-policy debates, don't be clearly abusive, real game changers right here. Don't skimp on the internal net benefit analysis either, really make it competitive to the aff regardless of the offense on other flows. Ks - Just because I was a critical debate doesn't mean I will take an underdeveloped one and do the work for you. If it's a sloppy K debate I will feel disinclined to award high speaks regardless of whether or not I vote on it. Also don't make your alt basic/reject the aff, I want to know how the alternative will solve the impacts of the criticism and also tackel the nuances of the aff. T/FW/Procedurals - I enjoy judging these debates more than I do debating them. I don't want to hear generic blocks on these, though, really sell your net benefits and why the aff's model of debate is net bad, don't just exclude them. I have a hard time voting on Policymaking framework if it is answered reasonably well, but a different interpretation that allows for the possibility of the aff to be debated in another shape or form can make for a great and productive debate in my opinion. Theory is A-okay with me, especially with critical internals.