Ricarte,+Adrian

Adrian Ricarte Loyola High School Assistant Debate Coach Adrian.ricarte@gmail.com Judging Paradigm: Policy Debate I am a currently one of the assistant debate coaches at Loyola High School and I am currently working for an entertainment law firm in Los Angeles. In high school, I participated in policy debate from my freshman year all the way through my senior year so I have no problem understanding the argumentation that is presented before me so long as the information presented is clearly stated and the argumentation flows logically. Judging Criteria 1.	I tend to look at the theory very heavily in the round for a few reasons. The first reason is that the theory behind debate is the foundation upon which the activity is based upon. If no one followed the theory behind policy debate, then the debate would essentially just be chaos. People would just throw out arguments back and forth. There would not be a debate, only two sides arguing for position in the round and chaos. 2.	Additionally, related to theory, I also tend to look at Topicality very heavily in the round as well. There have been rounds in the past that I have judged completely on whether or not the affirmative was topical. As all of us know in the debate community, if the affirmative isn’t topical, there is no reason for the judge to vote aff. As the judge, I have to look at Topicality first even if the affirmative claims that there is some sort of abuse in round. However, a lot of the times I’ve judged, T has been used as a purely strategic position which I am also completely for. It is the affirmative’s job to “push through” this strategy. 3.	Now, although it sounds like I have a completely set structure on how I think the debate should play out, everything is still debatable, even the rules of debate. Thus, if negative shows me a different framework in which to essentially “frame” the debate round and clearly shows me this fact, then I have to vote neg. Unless of course, the affirmative disproves the provided framework. 4.	It is important that both affirmative and negative maintain respect for each other and respect for me. Plainly and simply, if the judge doesn’t like you, then it is likely the judge will not vote for you. This should be the easiest rule to follow. However, I know some debaters get caught up in their emotions, especially in the middle of a round. There is nothing wrong about being passionate about the topic, but there is something wrong when that passion turns into disrespect. 5.	Lastly, I am okay with spread. If for some reason I don’t understand what the students are saying, I will tell them to either slow down or yell “CLEAR” in the middle of their speech.