Cartagena,+Evan

Evan Cartagena Debater at the University of Florida Assistant Coach at Oak Hall School, Gainesville, Florida

I strive for the least imposition of my personal views on the round, but I do recognize that no one is truly tabula rasa, so I’ll try to map out my biases as much as possible. That being said, there are few things to keep in mind when you’re debating in front of me:


 * I am //incredibly// expressive when I judge. Read that again.
 * The less work I have to do for you, the happier both of us will be.
 * In short, there are no hard and fast rules/views of debate, and I think that’s the greatest part of this activity. I’ll adopt whatever framing of the debate you’ll tell me to, and I can //definitely// be persuaded against any of my own preferences. I’ll vote on any well-developed argument, so be creative, and be smart!
 * The messier the debate becomes, the more likely I am to default to my own predispositions.
 * 2AC order on off-case flows, and 1NC order on the case flows. Tell me if there’s an overview and if I will need another piece of paper/excel sheet. Get down with that line-by-line.
 * If your opponent drops argument, point it out and tell me why that matters.
 * If you’re debating paperless, prep time stops when you tell me to, but if you’re stealing prep, I will say something.

Down to the nitty-gritty.

Affirmative DA/Case
 * Do what you do. Policy, kritikal, identity, performance, “non-traditional,” etc.is ok with me.
 * The 2AR will have a tough time with me if it is going for arguments that just pop up in the 1AR but, that 1AR is a tough speech, so I might be even more inclined to listen “new” arguments in the 1AR that are creatively contextualized from the 2AC. Also, if the 2NR doesn’t call out the 1AR on new arguments, I’m less inclined to protect you.
 * If you read multiple permutations in a row, slow down. Otherwise, space them out if you can.
 * Fine by me, just make sure that the story of your DA is clear to me, as should be why it outweighs case. Some judges won’t consider zero risk of case, but if you’re doing a good job, I’ll consider it.

Counterplans
 * I’ve spent most of my collegiate career thus far, so I’m open to theoretical arguments about the legitimacy of certain CP’s (those with abusive fiat, delay, consult, etc.), but they are fair until the aff proves otherwise. I’ll get to this more on theory

Kritiks
 * Some of my favorite arguments are K’s, so read em if you got ‘em. Don’t take this to mean that you can throw around jargon and win, because a) I know the basis you’re talking about and think you’re over-simplifying the author’s intent, b) I don’t know what you’re talking about, the aff points this out, and you lose. If you can’t explain how the K interacts with case (important in and of itself too) with some level of layman’s terms, you’re gonna have a bad time.
 * I say it again, I won’t vote on it if I can’t understand it, and I have lot sympathy for 2A’s that hit teams that refuse to explain the K for them.

Topicality/Framework/Theory CX
 * Tell me what debate/the world looks like if I were to vote for you interpretations/standards/etc.
 * Slow, slow, slow way down and be as clear as possible. It’s really hard to flow and vote on a these arguments you’re reading your blocks at 350 words/minute, and I’m liable to miss something.
 * T is either about reasonability vs. competing interpretations, and you should argue about which standard is best. If no one says anything through the entirety of debate I’ll default to the former so I don’t have to vote on T
 * For theory, you need establish how abusive the objection needs for me for me to act on it, what it is I need to do and why, and whether I should look for in-round abuse or potential abuse (and why). I find some arguments more
 * Be smart and creative.
 * If you get a laugh out of me, it’s going to be good for you
 * If arguments/points are made in cross-examination, they have to be brought up in speeches for me to care/vote on it.