Villaplana,+Mario

CX Philosophy

I try to be a tabula rasa judge. I competed for 4 years in high school, got to outrounds 3 times at TFA, got to outrounds at nationals twice, and placed at UIL State a few times. Fine with speed, but it's been a while since I debated. I'll warn you if there are any clarity issues.

Critiques -- Totally fine with these if you can explain them and contextualize them well to the affirmative, although I am not favorable to critiques of debate. Focus on alt. solvency is persuasive. Wacky K affs relevant to the topic are always fun. If the debate comes down to framework, weighing your impacts in a world where you lose framework will be persuasive.

C/P -- Not much to say here. I like good counterplans, but I am very susceptible to aff on consult and other c/ps I perceive as plan-plus. No particular side on theory, but direct rebuttals rather than continuous block reading is important if the debate comes down to that. Weigh net benefit impacts against potential solvency deficits directly.

T -- Don't run substantial is 20% unless you have something I haven't heard before. I like T debates where both sides weigh different voters or internal links to voters, i.e. what is the relationship between grammar and education and how should those be evaluated? Critiques of T are OK, but please don't just read your blocks. I like K of T if it's relevant to another critique in the debate that's not some generic deconstructionist argument.

D/A -- Disads aren't too controversial, I suppose. On politics and other time-sensitive args, teams have the burden of explaining why timeframe outweighs other warrants on uniqueness if they choose to go for the "I win because I have newer cards" route.

If there is anything you are unsure about or something I have not covered, feel free to ask.

LD Philosophy

I didn't compete in LD in high school, but I have watched more than a few debates. Like in CX, I'm generally tabula rasa and am OK with critiques. Good, direct impact analysis and end rebuttal analysis about how you win even if you lose X, Y, Z argument is persuasive to me.