Almeida,+Gregory

Gregory Almeida

Experience Debated 3 Years with the University of South Florida-St. Petersburg Judged 5 Years of High School Policy Debate Judged 3 Years of College Policy Debate

Policy Debate Philosophy:

Overview

My experience competing was strictly as a policy debater, though in my 5 overall years of judging I have judged everything from Policy to LD to PF. Nevertheless, I come from a policy background so i have a tendency to allow for some "policification" of other debate events (yes, I just made up that word).

Speed: As I said before, I debated policy in college. Trust me, I can handle whatever level of speed you want to go. Clarity is important though. The best debaters that I've seen in my career can go a million miles a minute and I can understand every word they are saying. Balancing speed and clarity is every debater's goal speaking wise, so keep that in mind. During a round my eyes tend to go from focusing on my flow to looking at one debater or another. Don't worry, I'm getting all the information. Feel free to focus on your evidence and flows while speaking. I never understood judges that insist on having debaters look at them during a round. You should feel relaxed and comfortable.

Flow: I am fairly competent. I'll never be the first guy in the room to say that I have a perfect flow, but 5 years of debating and judging tends to consistently improve one's flow. I periodically flow author names only. In other words, don't get up in a round and just say "Extend the Williams evidence from earlier." You need to quickly summarize the point as well for me to accurately account for it on my flow.

Evidence: For me, a great round always involves a combination of physical evidence and argumentation. The most boring and least educational rounds are the one's where people just get up and read a bunch of cards. I'm always looking for good argumentation to support the cards that are being read, be it during speeches or during cross-ex. Clash in a round is always important.

CX: Open cross-ex is fine for me. I don't flow cross-ex. I'm not of the opinion that a round is ever won or lost during cross-ex. Cross-ex for me has always been an informational tool. This is the opportunity for teams to gather and clarify information for their upcoming speech. Aggression is good and entertaining, but don't badger the other team into submission.

Prep/Paperless: I'm fine with both paper and oarless systems. Truth be told, I was probably one of the last few college debaters who debated beginning to end on a pear-based system. This was due to a combination of financial and technological constraints at the time. I do not consider flash driving evidence to be prep-time, but please for the love of God do not let me see you doing anything debate related while evidence is being passed, otherwise I will tell you to start prep. Just a pet peeve of mine.

Specifics (By Argument Type):

DA: Should have uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Impact calculation is a must, and should include a discussion of how the DA turns case. Aff specific DA are awesome, specific links make me smile. Topic specific DA are preferable when Aff specific DA aren’t available. On Politics, I believe that they have an important place and strategic value in debate. I also know that there are many weekends that just aren’t good for Politics DAs. The teams that recognize this will win more rounds. Brinks are quite important, especially for arguments like spending.

CP: Similar to the DA section, I like topic specific CPs, if not Aff specific CPs. A clear explanation of the CP and its mechanism as an overview in the block makes me happy. A CP should have a text (slow down and be clear) a solvency advocate, and a net benefit. When pairing with a DA for a net benefit, make sure the CP actually avoids the net benefit. I find too many debaters let this point go unchallenged because they don’t have evidence, and encourage common sense arguments here. Some specifics <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">States--I’m open to them, but not necessarily sold on their ability to solve as much as a lot of teams get away with. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">CP that compete on uncertainty--I ran some conditions CPs in my time, but am increasingly unconvinced of their legitimacy. If the condition/consultation/whatever is specifically suggested on the issue in question by multiple authors, I’m pretty sold.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">PICs: Similar to CPs that compete with uncertainty, I like PICs that are suggested by the literature, or at least make common sense. Substantive PICs make me happy, and encourage the Affirmative to run a tight ship, defending only what they have to. Topic specific word PICs have their uses, especially against critical affirmatives. The smaller the PIC, or the more generic, the more frustrated I will become.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Process/Agent CPs--Good stuff. Be specific, have an interpretation of normal means. Also, be sure to explain the advantages of the CP vs. the AFF.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">T: I am not a T hack, and hate deciding rounds on T. I do also find that T is a very important strategic tool, and more teams should get beaten until they change Affs on T. I have read Ks of T, but don’t find the strategy terribly effective. Please prove abuse. Predictability/Resolutionality(in K Aff rounds) is an important part of T debates that I find gets ignored. If you are going to go for it, go all in. Slow down a little bit in your 2R and get in detail, don’t burry me in meaningless standards. Perming T has never been explained coherently to me in round, but if you feel up to the challenge, please go for it.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Case: Case debate is the cornerstone of policy debate, because historically, it has been. That being said, I do not like judging straight up case debates. Maybe it cause I've been around for a while now and have gotten exposed to so many different types of arguments that case debate just doesn't seem that interesting to me anymore. Its like when you go from listening to Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple to listening to Rush, King Crimson, and Yes. Really good, but later is much more interesting. Nevertheless, the strength of a good case debate can never be dismissed and if teams want to get deep into one, I will most certainly respect that as a judge.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Framework: There are two sections here:

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Impact Framing: very important, especially in clash of civilization debates. If you leave me comparing dehumanization and a nuclear war at the end of the round without impact calc, I will be sad.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Policymaking/K/Performance etc: I have always been very open to non-policymaking framework arguments. Maybe that's because I ran a lot of that in my competitive career, but I do not default one way or another. You have to prove it in round and be convincing. What I have never done is performance. I've judged a few performance rounds, or shall we say, attempts at performances. Again, I'm open to whatever type of framework, but don't just get up there and sing a song, tell me why the song matters vs. non-song.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The K: This was my bread and butter as a debater. Though I never had a problem running straight up policy arguments, the K's were always much more interesting and fun for me. So, it is safe to identify me as a lean K judge. That being said, don't just get up there, read a K, and sit on it for the whole round and expect me to vote for you. An effective K needs to be flushed out thoroughly during a round and make sure to have answers against theory as well as case specific evidence. Nothing, felt better for me back in the day than reading a K and having up to date, case specific evidence in there too. K Affs; I read some, and am down with them, but make sure they are strategic instead of just offbeat/unpredictable. Have specific answers to things instead of just critiquing “the state" or "capitalism," and expecting it to get you out of specific criticisms.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Theory:

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Conditionality: I will default to believing that the Neg gets two off case “worlds” and the SQ as an option unless you tell me otherwise. (I’m very willing to hear justifications for more, or what types of worlds these can be, but if you try to under limit the neg, I will snooze)

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Dispo: I don't buy dispo and never have.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">CP Theory: I will vote down the arg, not the team unless there is a burning reason to do otherwise. Should NEVER be a substitute to trying to answer the CPs substance. If theory is really the only option, then say so, using examples. If you are right, you will win that debate. If you are wrong, I will chuckle and vote against you.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">DA Theory: One of those logical arguments that might be more intelligent than “technically true” in policy debate

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">K Theory: Often a useful strategy, but isn’t a substitute to actually answering the K

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Perm Theory: Multiple perms seem to justify a degree of conditionality. Still, don't get up there and read 10 or 15 perms. Believe me, I've had it happen to me a couple of times. It's insane. Most Perm theory is never impacted, or clearly explained. Slow down if you have to.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If there are any remaining questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins and I look forward to judging you all.