Cruz,+Jon


 * == Jon Cruz ==

The Bronx High School of Science
I am the Director of Speech & Debate at the Bronx High School of Science.

I have experience at, and appreciation for, every "level" of debate. I debated locally in New York from 1997 to 2001 for Great Neck South High School. I have coached debate on a national, regional, and local level since graduating high school. I have directed the Bronx Science Speech & Debate Team since 2005.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm (Updated January 2015)

 * Presentation.** I prefer that debaters stand when they speak in rounds when they are able to do so in rounds. Rudeness to one's opponent makes the round meaningless, devalues the activity, and causes me to seriously intervene with speaker points and, in extreme cases, my ballot. I am open to alternative ways of constructing and presenting arguments. But I do not want to hear vulgarity or rudeness in rounds even if it is part of an alternative style of presentation. I am okay with an argument making me uncomfortable and putting me outside of my comfort zone. I am not okay with vulgarity making me uncomfortable, nor am I okay with homophobic, racist, or sexist language making me uncomfortable. ** Yes, I ** __ **have** __ ** outright dropped debaters for being rude or being extremely vulgar in rounds. ** Please be professional and courteous in rounds.


 * Speed.** There was a time where I judged literally hundreds of rounds of debate per season. That time has long, **long** since passed. Since becoming the director of a large program (we have over three hundred speakers and debaters across all speech and debate events), and since I began directing tabulation at many tournaments, I have judged far, far less. As a result, at this point, I prefer **slower** rounds. In the past, I normally said speed is not an issue as long as you are clear. However, I've judged far less in recent seasons and so I am nowhere near the top of my game in terms of speed presently.


 * Theory.** I would strongly prefer to see a debate centered on substance and I think it's tragic that Lincoln-Douglas debaters actually discuss whether they should "run substance" ahead of rounds. That said, if one can demonstrate legitimate abuse has occurred in a round, there is likely room for a theory debate. I find that some well-executed topicality debates can be genuinely interesting. __**NOTE CAREFULLY:**__ I do **not** consider myself an expert on theoretical arguments and I often find that debaters use excessive shorthand and underdeveloped thoughts to advance their theory arguments in rounds. I have voted off of theory in numerous rounds, but I would greatly prefer to see competing substantive positions forwarded in a round. In order to vote off of a theory violation, the demonstrated abuse would have to be fairly high. **Clearly explain your theory arguments to me.**


 * Reading Evidence.** __**NOTE CAREFULLY:**__ This is very, **very** important. I will __**ONLY**__ read a card at the end of the round if there has been a crucial disagreement over its meaning in-round or if something beyond the debater's control -- a loud noise, for example -- prevented me from comprehending the arguments. I will __**NOT**__ read one because it wasn't clearly conveyed when read initially, because that would infinitely extend the speaker's (limited) time. I can only vote off what is clearly articulated, and I will simply not to vote off something that I could not understand even if it is extended. Please keep that in mind as you articulate arguments and explain how they function in the round.

Borrowing an approach from my former pupil -- and my former employee -- Matt Dunay, I will organize/clarify some additional thoughts on the round by organizing them into "likes" and "dislikes." (Unsurprisingly, we see many things similarly.) Doing something I "dislike," or not doing something I "like," does not mean you will be dropped. But if you want to make the round easier for me, and if you want to get higher speaks, you might want to consider the following lists.


 * Likes**

1. Humility 2. Politeness 3. Intelligence 4. Clarity (both in speaking and in presentation and organization of arguments) 5. Weighing arguments 6. Constructives that center on substantive positions (distinctly ideological or otherwise) 6. Providing a clear decision-making calculus judge from the start throughout the round (this should include "weather maps" at the start of rebuttals -- that is, making clear what issues the round the debate is coming down to/where the round will be decided, and thus making clear the reasons behind the order/choices [the "road map"] you are making in this speech -- as well as clear crystallization in the last rebuttals) 7. Slow and effective negative spreads 8. Slow 1ARs that cover fast NC/1NRs 9. Smart analytic responses to absurd evidence 10. Voting issues (especially when at the end of the final rebuttal) 11. Cross-examination (especially when one uses it to extract concessions, not just clarify arguments) 12. Smart, topical, specific application of philosophy (critical or otherwise) 13. Being funny in the round/not being a debate robot 14. Disclosing arguments 15. Not making the judge think


 * Dislikes**

1. Arrogance 2. Rudeness (even worse when you //are// the better debater) 3. Obfuscation 4. Vulgarity 5. "Triggers" instead of substantive argumentation 5A. The proliferation of "skep triggers" 6. "Net benefits" as a standard 7. Blippiness in rebuttals 8. Blippy, hidden arguments in cases that are then exploded into massive issues in the rebuttals 9. Lack of organization in the constructive or rebuttals 10. Coming to the round unprepared (especially when you are in the B flight) 11. New arguments in the 2NR/2AR 12. Labeling arguments as turns when they aren't turns 13. Not looking at the judge to see how he's reacting 14. Failure to provide voting issues or clear crystallization 15. Power-tagging/mis-cutting evidence 16. Evasiveness in cross-examination 17. Reading a narrative in the first speech, then kicking it in the next and going for turns (Mr. Dunay seems to have borrowed this from an experience I had!) 18. Extending every argument into the final rebuttal because of a failure to strategically select issues 19. Refusal/inability to make simple, smart logical arguments 20. Failure to disclose arguments on the grounds that a "big school will prep you out more" 21. Flex Prep 22. Making the judge think ||  ||   ||