Bustamante,+Jesse

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Affiliations: Granada Hills ‘11 UCLA ‘15 Assistant Speech & Debate Coach – Chaminade College Prep

__**Background:**__ I competed for three years in LD debate, clearing at multiple tournaments including USC and Stanford. I qualified to the CA State Championships my senior year.

As a general statement there is no particular type of argument that I will default to vote on or reject in a debate. It is up to you as the debater to identify what components of your case or the round determine victory.

__**Paradigm:**__ I do not default to either truth-testing or comparative worlds. If I see analysis on multiple impact scenarios and are weighing offense/defense, then I will assess the comparative worlds. If the debate is focused on testing the validity of the resolution and theoretical/philosophical objections are being evaluated, then the debate relies on a truth-testing evaluation. Of course it may not always turn out turn out to be completely one or the other but because I find clash to be important this is how I usually view the round.


 * __Framework:__** Just make sure that you develop a coherent framework that can be used to evaluate and weigh arguments made in round. Make sure that you do a good job on competing frameworks debate, or else I'm left with a mess off arguments on my flow, with no way to understand how I should evaluate them.


 * __Weighing:__ //This is pretty much the MOST IMPORTANT part of the debate. This is how I would view perfect weighing://**

A: Explain to me how the framework interacts in the round, specifically, how I should evaluate the standards, if there are any prerequisite burdens, and how I should use the mechanism to evaluate and preclude any arguments that are made.

B: Identify any impacts that are actual prerequisites to other impacts. Identify any false prerequisite arguments that your opponent may have made. Discuss the argument that logically or mechanically has to come before others in the round.

D: Identify the largest impact in the round. Explain how you win that impact argument

E: Explain how extensions that you are winning link best into that impact.

F: Explain how you are winning the largest link into the impact links back strongest into the framework/standards established.

G: Explain how any of your extensions preclude or answer back your opponent's arguments.

__**Theory:**__ I am okay with the use of theory but if you are running a potential abuse argument there must be heavy warranting in order for me to buy it (ie. show me instances in which potential abuse can violate a standard or voter specifically). Use the four point structure so I may extend it on the flow. I recommend making a counter interpretation to address theory. I will however if justified judge on arguments based on reasonability.

__**Counter plans, Kritiks, and DA’s:**__ I am not as well versed in the use of these techniques so if you run them please be very clear. Articulate uniqueness, links, impacts well and extend them like any other argument.


 * __Speed:__ //This is my weak point as a judge. You can go at a fast rate, but definitely NOT at your highest rate OR when your clarity becomes an issue.//** If you speak around 300-350 wpm (really really fast) I will only be able to hear around 70% of the information, and in that regard because my flows are messy I will only record around 50% of the information. If you want me to record everything you may have to slow down to 200 wpm (somewhat fast). I recommend in this case that you slow down at taglines and for anything that you really want to be on the flow.

__**Speaker points:**__ 30= Best debater at the tournament. You WILL make finals. I'll give this out once or twice a tournament.

29 = Outstanding debater. You did a very good job of comparative analysis and were perceptually dominant. You will make it deep into out rounds.

28 = Excellent debater. You did a very good job on the line by line, and made a good effort to comparatively weigh your arguments with your opponents. You will break at the tournament.

27.5 = Average debater. You were all around solid in making arguments and comparing frameworks and standards, but lacked advanced analysis. You may break at the tournament, but you may not. You're on the fence.

27 = Mediocre debater. You only went down the line by line, and had weak voting issue analysis. You will break even at the tournament.

26 = Poor debater. Your arguments were incoherent, and your analysis left the round very muddled, and hard to judge. You will get a losing record.

25 and below = You were rude to your opponent, argued violently with me after the round, and were very insulting

Good luck.