Hernandez,Jude

Jude Hernandez B.A. in Political Science, Minor in Communication Studies CSUN Debated: 1 year at CSUN in 2012-2013, all divisions Judged: High school level 1 year for LAMDL 2012-Present, and college a couple of months


 * Background**:

Okay so to start I debated at CSUN for one year, but in that time I competed in all divisions and ended as an Open debater. In that time I received a couple of top speaker awards and broke to elims a couple of times. As for my judging resume, I have judged at LAMDL tournaments quite often, including elims so feel at ease when I judge.

[quick summary] So in a nutshell I will vote for anything as long as it is developed, and argued well throughout the round. If you like theory go for it, is Topicality you're cup of tea? Go all in, Critique/Kritik (or however the hell you want to spell it) go nuts. I'll vote on anything just make sense of it to me, and tell me a story I want to go for in the end. I will go into more detail for all type of arguments.
 * Breakdown for my vote**:

Abuse: If it is in the round and articulated well; such as other team not jumping you evidence in a timely manner, or team just being extremely rude, racist, sexist, etc.. I will vote for it

Theory: Theory debates are fine and all, but I tend not to enjoy them much. Will still vote for it, but please make it a point of emphasis (i.e. why condo is so bad) and there better be pretty damn good abuse for me to vote on in, so is education really at risk.

Critique/Kritiks: They seem to be all the rage, so yeah they are important for debate. Was not a big fan of these as a debater, but since my debate career I now see how they can be important to debate. The thing for me is that you better know what you're talking about when you run these things. Nothing burns me out like a K team running something they have no idea about, especially when they cannot answer questions of their own aff or neg during cross ex. Impacts are important in debate especially in K debates so drive your point home. I believe permutations are good answers to critiques especially if they articulated well and will vote against a K because of a good perm, rarely in my experience are K's mutually exclusive, but don't let that stop you from saying it I suppose. Framework is key when it comes to K debates so both sides should be prepared with these arguments, as framework in a simple sense frames debate. Point is just have fun with K's we all tend to learn something about it.

Topicality: Was a big T debater in my day, so I am all for it. Things to consider with me though is that there better be some in round abuse from an aff if you want me to vote on this. Explain the abuse, and why it is a voter. This argument for me has to be extended throughout the round to have a chance to succeed or else I will not vote for it. Just explain why the aff isn't topical and why their plan it is bad for debate

CP: These are cool as well, and used them a lot as a debater. Go nuts because in my experience these tend to be kicked out of in the 2NR, and unless you have a great net benefit that the aff can't offer then I will probably not for a CP. Just remember if the CP truly is better than the aff then I will vote for it.

DA's: These are very important for neg strat and make good debate. Still that goes without saying, just explain how the aff links to the dis ad, and drive the impacts home with impact calculus. Links are very important especially internal links, so if the aff can explain why they don't link to a dis ad than I will not vote for it. Analyitics are key when it comes to explaining these arguments.

Framework: These are probably the worst debates to judge because it is all about abuse from one side to other. Regardless I will still vote for the side that explains their side better. What I hate about framework debates is that they become more of a he said, she said argument, so please try your best not to this. I want to see the clash, not just arguments bombarding each side with no team answering the real question. Just tell me why your framework is good for debate, and why theirs is not and explaining why it isn't. Sounds simple I know, but you'll be surprised.

Prep Time: I am very strict when it comes to this stuff because tournaments have to keep a schedule, and I personally like being punctual. So, as a rule of thumb when you say end prep, you best stop doing anything or it will keep running. If you say end prep and the other team has not received your evidence that you tried jumping them, I will run it out of your prep time since you have to give it to them.

So we're at the end of my page, so here are some pointers with me. I'll always introduce myself before a round, unless I have met both teams before. When you're explaining something to me do not refer to me as "judge", it just sounds pretentious, so just call me by name. It is okay to be aggressive during debates, it is a competition, but it by no means allows you to act rude, obnoxious, and unkind. You should always act civilized and polite, if you're not I will give one warning, and if continues will dock your speaker points accordingly. Remember it's a learning activity, so what matters is what you get out of it, and always have fun.
 * Things you shouldn't do with me**: