Reyes,+Javi

Damien High School Class of 2014 Emory University Class of 2018

I am a college policy debater for Emory. I care most about clarity, clash and argument comparison.

Debate is about competing ballots and that's how i will make my decision. I know you all have put in a lot of work, and I will put a lot of work into judging.


 * Debating - ** it matters more than the cards (obviously cards still matter -- if you read terrible uniqueness cards and go for politics the chances you win is very very low, if your cards don't make an argument that i can repeat back to the other team and tell them why i voted against them i'll vote against you). I'm generally a flow centric judge, unless you're making an argument that is patently false, then it's going to be hard to get me to vote for you.


 * Meta ** - There can be 0 risk of a DA from absolute defense, and existential risk doesn't necessarily mean i ignore how much you solve existential risk.


 * Topicality ** - Always a voting issue, I generally default to competing interpretations, but I can be persuaded otherwise. T is an underutilized tool. Unfortunately most T debates get really muddled as debates go on. This makes evaluating it extremely difficult and results in a lot of intervention on my part to try to understand what is going on. So make sure your argument is constructed extremely well.


 * Framework - ** T v. framework distinction is very persuasive to me. The Framework debate should be about limits, procedural fairness, argument testing. The 1AC shouldn't get lost in the debate by either team; using framework args to implicate aff solvency is sweet. I have debated both sides of framework. I can be persuaded by either side.


 * Disads - ** Impact comparison + smart link / uniqueness args about the aff. Use your generic evidence but apply it specifically. Disad turns case arguments are more persuasive with explanations than just with a bunch of cards.


 * Counter Plans ** - I'm all for techy process CPs with well thought out competition blocks, I generally think process CPs are competitive, but I don't think they're legitimate. ** I can be persuaded in either direction **.


 * Critique ** - I can dig. Explanation of why the alternative solves the links and impacts is important. Pulling links from the 1AC, or giving example of how the critique is the cause of the harms, or explaining how it would turn the aff in real world terms also helps.

--

Critiques - I have probably come across most critiques while I have been in debate, so I probably have some understanding of the argument you would like to go for. That does not mean that your argument does not have to be explained well. I like critiques that interact with the content and performance of the affirmative and you should feel encouraged to read them in front of me as long as the argument is not too far out there.
 * LD** - I am extremely familiar with most arguments made in LD. But I have yet to become accustomed to all of LD norms.

Theory/T - I usually default to competing interpretation, but I can be convinced that reasonability is a good way to evaluate debates. These types of arguments are my favorite when I debate, so feel free to do so when I am judging. This does not mean that I will automatically vote for you if you go for these types of arguments. It just means I can understand the debate being held.