de+Loera-Brust,+Andres

I debated for four years for Davis High School and over that time I did every debate event. LD is definitely the event I know best but Parli is a close second. I now study economics in college and coach Policy for the Boston Urban Debate League. My experience was mostly with traditional, yet flow, debate, but I'm comfortable with progressive arguments. Overview: Ill vote on any argument in any debate event but probably can't handle your top speed. The analysis and comparison at the end of the round is crucial for me: I find myself voting for the best crystallizer and weigher 9 times out of 10. Everything else is minor personal preferences or stuff about specific arguments.

Speed: I have no theoretical objection to speed so I'm ok with it in any debate event. That said I probably can't handle the fastest. I'll say Clear, then I'll say Slow. I wont ever just give up flowing but youll probably lose speaks if you don't even try to adjust and i definitely will miss stuff. I feel like that should check any issues but I would recommend that you not read anything that absolutely requires going top speed.

Arguments: I want to hear what you want to run. I especially like innovative arguments, not a huge fan of just following the meta. I've particularly enjoyed listening to and participating debates that challenge the debate convention from innovative view points. This applies to any event and to any type of argument. I'm, in all likelihood, not very familiar with the topic literature. I'm probably also not up to date with all the technical arguments. So i view the round from a pretty blank slate. If you're going for something very specific make sure to define what that argument is technically when you present the warrants as to why it matters. Its very possible that I may not know what that jargon means but I'll totally vote on anything if you make me understand what it is. I also don't care about the format of arguments (A is the link, B is the etc etc) just for the sake of format, I really only care about understanding the arg. I expect extensions in some form (although i tend to tolerate what others would call "shadow extensions") and definitely enough sign posting to be comprehensible but I will try to make note of what you're saying and give you the benefit of the doubt. That means I'll be flowing something even if you're completely off topic or incoherent. That doesn't apply with respect to me voting though, I won't make up reasons for you.

Speaker points: I view speaks as a way to non comparatively rank debaters. That tends to mean an evaluation of your presentation but also your strategy and preparation. I do give low speaks and I do give high speaks. 30 is a debater I have no substantial recommendations for. 20 is a debater who seriously messed up in the round but deserves to be in debate. I usually end up giving between 25 and 28.

Presumption: I presume neg in policy and parli, aff in LD, and first speaker in PF because of my own opinions on debate. Obviously any argument made in round supercedes these, I just want to be upfront about how I will behave if you dont make presumption arguments..

Defaults on Theory: I drop the argument if the interp is about a particular argument, otherwise I drop the debater. I default to reasonability but really tenuously. I won't give RVIs without a reason but I'm pretty easily convinced. I'll look to education over fairness and like the idea of accessibility as a multiplier. But again, any argument in the round will supercede my opinions. Impacting: Do good Impact Calculus please. That doesn't necessarily mean your classic magnitude*probability stuff though, I'm happy to evaluate arguments that dont look at only ends if you are very clear about what impacts matter and why. In fact, if your framework evaluates impacts differently than a classic net benefits style analysis then I will filter through that lens and only consider those impacts. In the absence of framework (which would honestly be impressive) I guess i default to viewing myself as a policymaker being given arguments and will vote for the side i am more convinced by from my own view (pretty utilitarian). Im also very receptive to prefiat impacting, and feel like there is a lot of untapped potential in debating prefiat implications of many arguments.

Decorum: Dont be a dick. Off time road maps are very important! Y'all can figure out how to do prep time, I'd rather you just monitor each other. I don't care if you're in a suit but i also dont think wearing casual clothes is magically deconstructing something (thats not to dismiss performance, I just think performance has to reach a pretty high bar to garner prefiat impacts). Ill happily disclose if both debaters assent. I will drop you without your opponent saying anything if you do something blatantly damaging (straight up racism/sexism/homophobia, physically threatening people, and like anything else that actually hurts you opponent) so I guess strike me if your strat is to punch your opponents?