Rincon,+Abraham

DEBATE EXPERIENCE: > > DEBATE PHILOSOPHY: > PERSONAL JUDGING CRITERIA: > > > > > >
 *  I competed for 4 years in high school. I currently compete at East Los Angeles College.
 *  I have flow debate experience through working with numerous private and public academic institutions, where I worked alongside seasoned debate coaches.
 *  Debate provides students an opportunity to be passionate advocates on any given topic by means of using clear communication. Utilize unforgettable rhetoric, teach me something new, and always play by the rules.
 *  I’m comfortable with most debate jargon, but I’d prefer students not use it for purposes of clarity. I’m sure audience members, your judge, and your opponents would appreciate this as well. One of the main ways to receive good speaker points from me is to always treat each other with respect.
 *  When it comes to value, you should always make a direct connection from your arguments to it. Otherwise, your arguments don’t have as much weight from my view. If you can additionally demonstrate how your arguments work under your opponent's value, that’s a bonus.
 *  I appreciate off-time roadmaps. I don’t mind “spreading” (fast speaking), but make sure to slow down and enunciate tags and citations. Also, if I find the entirety of your speech to be filled with unnecessary diction, I will frown. Why? When you are exposed to word economy, genuine argumentation and clarity are upheld without the need of filler words. Lastly, you will note that I stop flowing as soon as the following occurs: information previously stated is being brought up once more, I cannot understand the speaker, or your argument is not making sense to me.
 *  I am not a huge fan of debate theory. If you decide to run theory in your case, do know that I will always make my decision based off of what I feel is most important in debate; the educational experience. I avoid making a decision based off of my own personal beliefs or experiences.
 *  If you decide to run a Kritik, I would appreciate your case most if it still acknowledges the round. Stressing a K without continuing to be a part of the entire debate is too dull. Not only should you be clear as towards why the other team is diminishing the value of the debate by means of what they are communicating, but you should also demonstrate that you care about the entirety of the debate.
 *  Throughout the debate, you should aim for pinpointing weak arguments and fallacies. Make it easy for me to flow arguments and be specific. Refer to the flow when covering your opponent's case in rebuttals. More specifically, you should cover all sub-points mentioned in each contention.
 * Often times, competitors do not cover an entire contention and generally cover an argument - no. Simplify the process of me disregarding an argument entirely. In rebuttal speeches, cover something that has not been covered before. Do not present old news to the table.