Garcia,+Ivan

I debated 4 years at Law Magnet

I would like to describe my judging philosophy as being more along the lines of tabula rasa. I listen to all kinds of arguments from all different perspectives. I think debate is a game and a forum for discussion through different mediums.  Topicality/ Theory- If you can make well warranted arguments with both offense and defense, I will vote on it. I'm not too fond of 16 different generic definitions for simple words. Pick and choose.  D/A- I default to an offense/defense paradigm but I think an aff can win on defense alone if they making arguments about why having to have offense is bad. The more specific the disad to the aff the better.

CP- Please have a plan text (it's interesting how often people forget to write one down). Perms should also have a text. If you win your counterplan is legit and has a net benefit, I will vote on it.

Kritiks/K Affs- I went for the k in about 80% of my rounds in high school. I find myself surrounded by a lot of philosophical literature on a daily basis in college. That being said, don't assume I know every single piece of evidence from Lacan or Kant. If you choose to read a k and/or a k aff, please make sure to present a full and clear argument. I don't like sloppy debates with little to no articulation. Framework is probably important. I'm lowkey a fan of piks.