Rodriguez,+Christian

tl;dr - you do you

Tech outweighs truth, great spin/technical debating can beat higher quality ev when you have only decent/kinda bad cards, I'm more flow oriented when judging, these are my defaults, you can change them by making arguments about it though.

I don't care what you say as long as you can defend it, if you can't beat arguments that you think are bad, you should lose. I hate when I can't be flexible with what I can go for when I debate, so I think you should be able to say whatever you want.

I like framing arguments a lot (like link controls the direction of uniqueness), but this doesn't replace technical line-by-line debating

Be clear, if I don't know what you said then I don't expect the other team to answer it. I like fast debates, but I need to be able to understand you.

I don't do much research on the Oceans topic, I won't know super-specific acronyms. This also means I don't have any predispositions about any affs or what is and isn't topical.

DAs - pointing out logical holes and good analytics get really far with me and can completely take out a DA. Zero risk is possible. Don't drop "DA turns and/or solves the case". I'm more willing to listen to intrinsincness arguments than most people, I like them, but there are good neg answers too.

CPs - CPs that do the aff are illegit, but if you can defend them read them. Theory is always an option against bad CPs. I really like theory debates, but impact calc is incredibly important here. You really need to slow down so I can write down what you said though, I can be persuaded that abusive counterplans extended in the block are voting issues even if the neg doesn't go for it in the 2NR, but the 1AR has to spend a lot of time on why this is true. The neg can obviously beat this if dealt with, and it would take actual work for me to vote on it, not a 1-second blip. That being said, if you can defend these CPs theoretically, you should go for them.

K's - I don't read anything super high-theory like Baudrillard or Bataille, so if you read it, you need to do a lot of explanation on these. If you don't contextualize your K to the aff, I'm very persuaded by specificity arguments that the aff can make. I love when someone impact turns a K and just defends that Heg is sweet. The burden is on the neg to prove how the alt resolves anything if you go for an alt solves argument. Historical examples are super helpful.

T/Theory - Give examples of what affs would be justified by the aff's interp. Impact comparison between standards is crucial. I'm open to either reasonability or competing interpretations. Theory is always an option in front of me, if you can't beat dumb things like T-substantial, you should lose. The text of your interpretation matters to me.

K-affs/Non-traditional stuff - I'm open to listening to any of these affs, I'm not very familiar with them, so explanation is crucial. You can go for framework against these affs, but I won't err on one side just cuz of personal preference.