Morua,+Vicente

I am the debate coach at Pinecrest Preparatory Charter High School. I have experience with Lincoln-Douglas debate as well as Individual Events.

I am a traditional flow judge. For me, logic, reasoning and the flow are the key ways I come up with a decision. My decisions are all based on the flow, so if I cannot understand you, I cannot write down your otherwise articulate contentions. A dropped argument won't necessarily lose the match for me, but many dropped arguments, especially by the Negative, can be significant voters in the rounds. A logical framework must be evident for me to vote for a side. I prefer philosophical arguments, but I have no problem voting on a more technical case. I am generally not an advocate for spreading out the opponent nor using "policy" terminology in LD (i.e. kritik, CP, solvency), as I believe that the central issues in LD should be based around the ethics/morality of the topic, not how it should be implemented. That said, I have no issue with basing my vote on a policy-style round. To me, ultimately, you must demonstrate how your case relates to your VP and Criterion (and possibly to your opponent's) to get my ballot. Signpost your arguments at the final rebuttals and tell me why you win the round. Other than that, I believe that every round is an opportunity to get better. Good luck!