Farias,+Steven


 * Steven Farias**
 * Judging for:** Lynnbrook (hired not coaching)
 * Attended:** Central Catholic High School; University of the Pacific
 * Rounds:** 16 LD; 10 Policy Experience: 4 years Congress and LD in HS, 4 Years Parli in College, 2 years LD in college
 * Approaches:**
 * Topicality/Vagueness:** I believe that there must be proven abuse in the round in order to vote on the position, if not you are just whining for someone else and it won't help your speaker points.
 * K:** I think that K's often need Alternatives if I am going to vote on them or at the best they become linear disads. That being said, if you have SPECIFIC links to making things HELLA worse, then I will vote on them without alternatives.
 * Performance:** It needs carded justification for me or WELL WARRANTED justifications, not "performance is our lives so it is okay," I need more than that.
 * Counterplan:** I dont think its really a problem in LD.

In general, I live by T.I.'s motto "You can do whatever you like...." because I honestly do not care what you run. I believe the debate round is yours to do with what you want and I as the judge am to interpret the arguments presented and the warrants presented with those arguments. In terms of a round with clash, the flow wins my ballot. In terms of a round that has dropped arguments I will use a two pronged decision calculus: 1) the warranted argument that goes drop will win those sets of arguments 2) if neither argument has warrants I will default what I already know. So I guess my best advice is make sure you refute the other teams arguments, make smart arguments with warrants, and EXPLAIN WHY YOU OUTWEIGH, don't just assert that you do. If you have any specific questions for me, feel free to email me at s_farias@pacific.edu to ask.