Rivera,Jose

=== I am a first a policy judge unless a framework is provided either in the 1AC or 1NC that gives me another way to evaluate the round. Frameworks must be clearly articulated and explained in order for me to abide by it, especially the role of the ballot. If a framework is not provided then the affirmative must uphold the resolution and have a plan text and defend it. And the negative must negate the resolution though the various off case args at their disposal. As far as types of arguments I’ll vote for Kritiks are more than ok as long as they are well explained especially the alternative, it is always a plus if you can establish a strong link to the case and explain how they interact with each other, especially when doing an impact calculus. Counter-Plans including PIK’s are fine as long as its net-beneficial, and the agent advocating the plan actually shows interest in passing the plan. Topicality is fine however its run, but I will only vote on it if there is clear abuse. Theory is also ok, but I’m least likely to vote on it, I would prefer to vote on other arguments I should hope that the debate come down to a mundane about theory. And as with all arguments the more specific your evidence is to the topic the better off you are at the end of the round when comparing evidence. From the 2AR/2NR I expect a clear and concise story and more importantly a good impact calculus and I expect the teams to weigh the round for me I should have a clear idea in my mind who has won the round at the end of the debate. Other than that the only issue I have is with speed especially when you are not clear. If you choose to speed read anyways absolutely make sure you are clear and you clearly and explicitly differentiate between tags, anything not on my flow will not be weighed at the end of the round and any extended arguments that were not flowed previously will count as new arguments. Anything more specific ask in-round. ===