Hernandez,+Armando


 * Experience** - I was an LD debater for 2 years in high school and I’ve been judging LD for 4 years. I am a Philosophy Major at the University of Dallas.


 * Speed** – is relative. I don’t care how fast you speak as long as you’re clear. I usually won’t tell you if you’re going too fast and I’ll just flow whatever I can hear. At the very least you should be clear on taglines.


 * LD Paradigm** - I don't care so much that you have a Value and Value Criteria so long as you explicitly point out how you want me to evaluate the round. I evaluate cases in their entirety, not just specific cards. I follow the flow of the round as to give the debater more ground to set up any type of argument they want. So I judge the round based off the arguments made within the round, not arguments that the debaters did or did not make.


 * Policy Arguments in LD** - In and of themselves, I do not have a problem with "policy/CX" arguments in LD. I do believe the debater asserting the DA, CP, etc. must be able to demonstrate a specific link in the action of her opponent's case, not just the resolution. Absent this, I will give the debater answering the argument some wiggle room.


 * Theory** – I will entertain any and all theory. However if you choose to run theory and do so unsuccessfully it will count as a strike against your case.


 * How to win my ballot** - Tell the better competing story, defend your story, and tell me why your world is preferable over the opponent’s world. Half-assed theory arguments are the fasted way to lose my ballot.


 * Disclosure:** If the tournament permits I will disclose the winner with a brief explanation. The debaters are welcomed to ask any questions they may have.


 * Additional Info** – Try not to be rude in round, assertive but not rude. I don’t care if you stand, sit, jump, or lay down when you read your case; I’m only interested in the debate itself.