Juarez,+Jorge

__Background __: 2 years of policy debate at Los Rios (Sacramento City College), currently attending UC Davis.

__Topicality __: Use it to keep potentially squirrelly affs in check. Use it because you love T and you can’t live without it. Use it to annoy T-haters like myself. Use it but don’t //overuse// it i.e. don’t run ten topicality violations just because you can. Respect T and it will love you back. Maybe.

__Framework & Theory __: Framework is an argument that should be contested like any other. This includes arguing over whether I should evaluate framework at all. Admittedly, you’re not going to have a great chance of winning the debate if the premise of your argument is that we should exclude critiques, performances etc. from debate. That’s just not going to fly with me. On theory, please--and I mean this for your own good--SLOW down! I don’t have the greatest flow and I assure you that there is a high probability of me missing something if you’re hellbent on blazing through your theory blocks.

__Case __: The most interesting, enjoyable, and potentially devastating strategies a neg can run almost always include some heavy case debate. Smart, effective, case debate will keep your opponents on their toes, make me happy, and will most certainly increase the likelihood of you getting high speaker points.

__Disads __: Disadvantages are great, but be sure to establish a solid link (preferably case-specific links). Having said that, I am of the belief (probably in the minority) that politics merits a special sort of attention from judges. Primarily because most politics stories (the link, the framing, the probability etc.) are on par with old German fables in terms of believability. Now this doesn’t mean that you can’t run a Politics DA in front of me. It just means that your politics evidence should be at the very least good and ideally the best evidence in your tub.

__Counterplans __: Also great, especially if part of a highly-specific neg strategy. Specificity, in conjunction with appropriate case-work is also grounds for higher speaks.

__Cross-Ex __: Probably the most authentic space in debate. I like to think of cross-ex as the state of nature in debate. Because of this, I will flow cx and generally don’t look kindly at any sort of filibustering.

__Critiques __: My main academic interests lie in the realm of political theory and contemporary German philosophy, so that should give you an idea regarding my stance on critiques. Ideally, when you run a critique you'll know the arguments, theoretical intricacies, and pertinent literature base like the back of your hand. But since I know that time is precious and we can’t all be critical theory obsessives I ask that you simply take the time to think over your arguments and make sure they align with the rest of your strategy.