San+Luis,+Natalie

Natalie San Luis Affiliations: Jack C. Hays HS, Thorndale HS, University of Texas

Background: I debated for Jack C. Hays for 4 years, primarily on the TOC and TFA circuits, and graduated in 2009. While debating, I was a 2A for most of the time but a 2N for a year. I ran middle-of-the-road affs, went for the K often as a 2N, but took T or CP/DA as a 1N. I wouldn't call myself a K judge or a policy judge, but it is a lot easier for me to sit through a bad counterplan/disad debate than a bad K debate. Things that make debate enjoyable for me: quick debaters; humor; comparative analysis.

General: -Compare impacts please. -In general a debater's analysis takes precedence over how good/bad a card is. That doesn't mean your cards don't matter; it means that you should make smart, non-carded arguments, you should analyze how good/bad a card is, and I won't call for cards that haven't been analyzed. -The longer I've been in debate, the more I detest BS. This doesn't mean I won't listen to well-articulated arguments; it means that I like hearing good defense as well as good offense, don't particularly like "risk of a link" debates, and am more sympathetic to reasonability for overlimiting T interpretations. -If you don't have anything to say, for the love of all that is holy, sit down. The phrase "Well, I guess I'll do an underview" will dock you speaker points. When you get to the end of your speech and decide to repeat yourself, you will know that I am not flowing because I will be giving you a death stare and not typing. -Do not shake my hand. Why would you do that?

T: Is about predictable limits. I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded otherwise -- an aff doesn't necessarily have to have offense to win a T flow if they meet the interpretation. Reasonability can be a convincing argument if you run it correctly (i.e. you have an aff at the core of topic literature and the negative's interpretation is overlimiting). This does not mean saying "our aff is reasonably topical, we're reasonable."

FW: I evaluate it similar to the way I evaluate T. On both sides, have a coherent, defendable, stable interpretation. I don't think I've ever voted on an aff interpretation that excluded all negative K ground; similarly I don't like Ks that say the aff doesn't get to weigh their impacts. I can be persuaded otherwise, but my personal predisposition is that a K is an argument and impacts are impacts.

Theory: If you want to go for it, make sure you are slow enough reading it that I can follow you. Quality over quantity -- really, theory debates center around a few arguments, so 20-point theory blocks are largely worthless to me. As a debater, I personally believe conditionality is usually good, multiple conditional advocacies are sometimes good/defendable, PICs are usually good. There are exceptions, and if you find one, go for it.

Kritiks: I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but not all of it. I like kritiks, ran them often, and am very impressed by a stellar K debate. Tell me why supporting the plan specifically leads to your impacts, rather than why the plan engages in an already existing problem. Make specific link/impact/turns case arguments. Aff - have a cogent 2AC strat. Author attacks are not convincing arguments.

CP: I love a tricky counterplan that is theoretically defensible. Well-researched advantage counterplans are great. If you're going for a perm, explain it. Use your aff to make solvency deficits.

DA: Can be devastating. Impact calculus and impact comparison are key. Make turns case arguments (and, if you're aff, answer them). "Ticks" are small, blood-feeding parasites, not the name of your politics disad. I like it when 2ACs call out a disad for making assumptions that are not necessarily true (i.e. popularity link, pcap internal link).

Speaker points: Things that will increase your speaker points include - running an argument well, being funny without being rude, utilizing cross-x time well, being tricky and smart Things that will decrease your speaker points include - stealing prep, mumbling, your arguments not interacting with their arguments, being rude, attempting to be funny but coming off as rude, saying "this is my cross-x."

Time Issues General: -﻿ I am pretty strict with time. I normally keep speech and prep time (and you should too, because sometimes I forget to set a timer or something). I won't start time immediately after your prep or CX ends, but I also am less lenient with people who take advantage of these untimed periods. If you stop prep, gather your papers, twiddle your thumbs, re-organize your cards, and then say "oh wait, start prep again," the time you spent jacking around will be counted as prep.

- Paperless time issues: I'm supportive of paperless debate and understand that at times there will be computer problems. Debaters shouldn't suffer because of unforeseen computer issues. Additionally, jumping speeches isn't timed. HOWEVER, I expect a few things out of paperless debaters; specifically, **the exchange of cards should be untimed, but the organization/copy-pasting/etc. will be timed.** You should have created documents for each speech before the round -- named, saved, etc. When you are prepping for your speech, you should also be cutting and pasting cards into the document, just like non-paperless debaters get their cards together during prep time. When you say "stop prep," your cards should be in the document, in order, and saved to the flash drive. Your prep time ends when you eject the flash drive and hand it to the other team.

-Debaters who steal prep anger me. It's disrespectful both to your judge and your opponents, as well as your partner, who might not break because I give you low speaker points. If a timer isn't running, you are not prepping. If you do it once, I'll take it off your prep time. If you do it twice, I'll dock your speaker points and probably complain about you to other people after the round.

In conclusion, run what you want as long as it is a good, well-articulated argument. To quote Jake Miller in his infinite wisdom, "Most of all don't let your warrior spirit block off the opportunity for a legitimate encounter with the people you're spending a couple hours holed up in a room with. Let debate be delicious, glorious, and unbounded."

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me or email me at nsanluis@gmail.com