Rivera,Joshua


 * Joshua Rivera**
 * TL;DR version of my judge philosophy:**
 * As a debater I debated advantage CP's and politics all the way to performance affirmatives. Your focus should be choosing the most strategic option for the debate.
 * I tend to err affirmative on theory for the following CP's : Process, Multiple Plank CP's, Delay, Floating Pics.
 * I tend to err Neg on theory for the following CP's, Consult, Advantage, Word Pics.
 * I default to competing interps on T.
 * Speed is a part of our activity, however, accessibility should be as well.
 * I never understood the policy v critical divide. My role is to facilitate the educational activity of debate as a judge and vote for who did the better debating.. This means I am willing to vote for the most limiting interpretation of framework and the most fluid as long as you have a good defense of what you choose.


 * Experience**
 * ** Debating: **
 * Policy debate in the Chicago Debate League 3yrs, graduated 2011.
 * NPTE/NPDA parliamentary debate 4yrs at SIU (I didn't know what it was in high school either, like policy, but with rotating topics) ** . **
 * ** Judging & Coaching: **
 * 4 years of judging primarily at New Trier, GBX, NW RR,
 * Coached various schools in the Chicago Debate League from time to time & camp instructor CDSI.
 * **Education:**
 * Economics/Political Science SIU
 * Master of Public Policy Candidate at the Ford School of Public Policy @ University of Michigan


 * Preferences: **
 * I see debate as an academic forum that should be driven by the students who are engaged in the activity and that rounds should be won based on the better debating and not on judges individual biases.
 * Flowing and Line-By-Line are an integral part of how I understand the activity, if you have another way you think I should judge a debate you must be specific.
 * My "default" judge setting is an offense/defense paradigm.


 * Paperless Rules:** (Tip: In the rounds I have judged debaters who flow on paper tend to have a better understanding of the round.)
 * You should have a USB drive that works and that is easy to acces for other debaters.
 * You send all cards you are reading in a speech
 * What happens to the file is dictated by the policy given to you by your coaches or school administrator.
 * Jumping files is NOT prep time.
 * If you are affirmative, it is a nice thing to have your file on a USB ready 3 minutes before the round is set to start.

__**Specifics**__
 * Speaker points: **
 * 4 minute overviews are unpersuasive.
 * Debaters are best utilizing their time in the 2NR/2AR doing comparative impact analysis, or if you want to clarify the debate a 30 second overview "writing the ballot" Ask yourself, "what arguments do I want the judge to say won this debate?" and execute on that.
 * I pay attention to how debaters utilize cross-x - great cross-x's can get me on your side.


 * Disads:**
 * Impact calculus and evidence comparison can really get me on your side in a debate.
 * Kicking out of a disad entails more than "ext the defense" those three words are not an argument.


 * Counterplans:**
 * If you read a plank you should have solvency evidence for it in the 1NC.
 * Process CP's tend to bore me but if you make your solvency arguments specific to the plan I can be easily convinced.
 * After 3 CP's in the 1NC I tend to err aff on theory.


 * Kritiks:**
 * My familiarity with the literature its not relevant - your application of the argument to win the flow is.
 * I prefer kritik debates that focus on the specifics of case, getting high speaker points will entail and in-depth knowledge of the application of the K to the arguments of the 1AC.
 * I'm not to fond of floating pics but can be convinced if you do well on the representations debate.
 * I think affirmatives can defend their representations and usually do well when they defend Positivism,Pragmatism, and be willing to impact turn the K.


 * Topicality: **
 * I tend to evaluate the debate through competing interpretations. I'm fine with reasonability but prefer the definition to be more than " our affirmative is reasonable."
 * "Topicality is a disad" doesn't mean anything.
 * Successful teams have leveraged definitional precision and/or vision of the topic as ways to approach framing the debate.
 * Topicality is a gateway/voting issue. In the instance where topicality itself is impact turned the team should defend an alternative means of structuring what we accept as "talking about the topic".


 * Theory:**
 * Going for it as a cheap shot not win a ballot in front of me.
 * I do enjoy when the 1AR makes a smart decision to go for theory you should articulate a clear impact i.e abuse, potential abuse, with arguments that are specific and that do not solely rely upon random causal claims that are just filled with jargon and not warrants.
 * Remember include reason to reject the team or else that flow is going away and I will evaluate the rest of the debate.

Questions? email me at riverajoshua1993@gmail.com