Mendes,+Daniel

**Daniel Mendes**

East Side High School graduate (2014)

Newark, NJ

I go to Rutgers- Newark

**SHORT VERSION**

Just like any other judge I am best with well explained arguments and good analysis. I prefer this over teams that just read a million cards. I'm probably more suited to critical arguments as I have more experience with them but run what you are good at. I don't like cheap shots, I think debate is more educational and pedagogical than a game, treat your arguments iwth value. I don't see debate in a vacuum or disconnected from the real world.

**Traditional Topicality/ Framework / Theory:** I find that when teams read this, it's always very recycled, the same blocks from 10 years ago. If you are reading this against K affs, ... Those old same standards aren't that persuasive to me. Make it persuasive, do lots of analysis, voters are a big deal for me don't make it a blip. I hate cheap shots, so when it comes to theory, if you are going for go for it. **Counterplans:** These are fine, I like hearing all the creative and crazy ways to solve for advantages. Specific is better than generic. It better be competative. **Disads:** I will vote on it if it's good and you win it. Don't just read hella cards in the 2nc block. Do big picture stories, you can read cards obviously but analyze it and make it apply to aff arguments I may not be super familiar with the latest politics scenarios (forgive me!) but if you explain all the steps in your overview and you win it then you're good. **Kritiks:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Awesome, win it. Make a good persuasive specific link. The Alternative is really important, I should know if it's something material or something educational because that's important in method debates. Read a framework especially against policy affs. Framework is also pretty important (roll of the judge and ballot and all that) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Policy/plan/USFG/Fiat type affs:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">@Teams that read traditional fiat USFG-like plan affs: I'm writing this in mind that the debate community has gotten a lot more critical recently. If you're going against a K you MUST win your framework interpretation. You cannot get mad at me for voting neg when you're standards are recycled, redundant, and unexplained!! Just please tell me why policy making is the best thing ever/ why it's preferable to the Neg's roll of the judge and ballot/etc. Explain your permutations, what they look like, how they work, why it functions. I have no problem voting for these affs but if you're framework sucks it makes my decision a lot easier lol <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Critical/ Performance Affs:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Nice, just tell me what ur method does and what that means in context of the debate community as well as the real world! I don't think these affs must defend the federal government or have a plan but I think planless affs should be atleast somehow topical because then we can diversify our arguments and you're not reading generic "Race K" cut from a debate camp in 2007. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Case:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE engage in a case debate. Neg- Put specific offense on case, challenge the aff! Aff- Please use your case past the 1ac. Extend your cards and smart arguments, the 1ac is 8 minutes of offense for you in the rest of the debate, use it like that!

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Flowing:** I'd say I'm pretty average at flowing, if you're going through a huge list of standards or something slow it down, Slow it down on the tags. I am not a flow centric judge, i look at my flow to see what you said, if the analysis aint there neither is the argument. Frameworks and precedurals come first obviously then comes the aff vs counter methods,plans, alternatives, or SQ

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**25s and a loss:** Racism good, Slurs, physical violence. Just be appropriate and behave lol

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Good speaks:** Be clear, and win. Be persuasive, be funny and approachable, it seriously helps a lot in making the round a better experience for everyone!

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I give speaker points for teams who know how to emphasize lines in their warrants rather than reading through it 500 wpm like a robot. I like passion and when people care about the things they read <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I'm really laid back and I think debate is an activity that's fun and to learn and be competitive. Dressing and acting "proper" and closed cross ex and all that strict garbage is silly to me. Feel free to ask my any questions.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Also I just want to say that if you don't agree with my decision feel free to ask questions and we can have a conversation with me after the round about how I interpreted the round, don't bicker with me and don't be rude.