Trevino,+Gabby

I debated for Alvin High School (Lincoln Douglas &Policy )and then tried to debate at the University of Texas @ Austin for a year then managed to sit back and become a semi-pro debate judge.

I've judged mostly in the Houston & central Texas circuit while in college and usually judged at least 3 tournaments a month, all events for 3 years straight.

I currently coach for Clear Springs High School and judge EVERY tournament we go to. Usually CX sometimes LD.

Most of the people I've judged would label me as tabula rasa although increasingly I feel as if I have been labeled a K judge which are assertions that should be made wisely.

To me, debate should be a forum for debaters to compete, and whoever is most //persuasive// at the end of the round will usually win. Both Clash & Class are key for me. Don't make me do the work for you on the flow. Analytic arguments at the top let me know you actually process the cards your reading.
 * A note to both L.D. and Policy debaters:**


 * CX/Policy:**

Speed is a-okay, and this isn't merely an attempt to remain a highly preferred judge. I usually have no difficulty flowing a round and unlike some have no qualms in telling you when you are unclear and I am unable to flow.

That being said //explanation// is still always going to be key in the round. Everyone has used that (Berube, Agamben,Derrida etc.) card. What do **YOU** assert that it means?

First things first: __FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK__

I consider myself pretty tabula rasa, as such I want YOU to tell me how to evaluate the round

Do i put my policymaker hat on? K apriori? utilitarian action good?

I need to know HOW the round should be evaluated especially with teams with multiple negative contradictory positions.

WHAT is most important. WHY is it most important. and WHO says we should do it that way.

__What to say about the K__

It seems as if lately people have been giving me more kritikal rounds, which is okay. However, I will give this disclaimer: I have read a huge amount of the literature you may or may not be butchering.

I have seen some great K rounds (and some not so great ones).

Ask yourself these questions:

What is the alt? Does the alt solve? Can you tell me why?

If you have asked yourself these questions and you have been found wanting, perhaps you should reconsider your neg strat.

I have no problem with performance debate either, much to the chagrin of my fellow comrades. Like any approach to debate it can be done well and it can be a travesty. To date I have seen 1 killer performance team on the HS circuit.

__Policymakin?__ Yes, as much as we have strayed from the original "stock issues" and ordinary DA, I will entertain these rounds too. Fully informed speakers on the nuances of plan passage make me happy.

__Politics__- Politics DAs are always interesting to hear, especially if you have an interesting or uncommon one. That being said. PLEASE explain the effect of your politics disad well especially if it is one of the arguments you will go for in a round. As much as I would love to watch C-Span all day, I'm human and flip the channel to trash television.

__Topicality__- Competing interps? Why is yours better? I know that T is a voter for fairness and competitive equity, how was the opposing team unfair? If your going to go for T please flesh our your arguments instead of merely making it a blip on the flow. The funny thing is, each and every year I find a decent chunk of affirmatives out there that are pretty not topical but no one ever calls them out?

__Theory/Abuse__ I have a really hard time pulling the trigger on potential abuse. Perhaps my own debate education was lacking in this area however I do need more explanation in regards to intricate theory arguments. Theory debate should never be a place to spread cards and give zero analysis in any round in my opinion. Your assertions to rules of the game need to be adequately supported and adequately explained.


 * LINCOLN- DOUGLAS**

Most of my philosophy and approach to LD comes from a Policy-esque mindset however there are a few things to keep in mind.

1. Speed is okay

2. FRAMEWORK - I do not mind the current trend of Lincoln Douglas debates that fail to use a value, however there is this all important thing (in my LD World) known as the CRITERIA, whether you call it the criteria or a standard there needs to be some way to evaluate the round. Furthermore there needs to be some sort of argumentation on the flow for a reason to abandon the "value" style approach to the round. The cards are out there, promise, I have cut them. - Especially in a world in which there is one "critical" case that lacks a value and one that has a value there must be an argument on the flow that claims why either style is inherently better for the goals of the resolution.

3. VOTERS VOTERS VOTERS - Please try to give clear voters, these go hand in hand with clear framework arguments that allow for an evaluative mechanism of the round.

These are the only true deviations from my Policy debate paradigm.