Ortega,+Michael

I debated LD for __3__ years at Christopher Columbus High School. I am a third-year student at the University of Miami majoring in Neuroscience and minoring in Chemistry, Philosophy, and Business Law.

[Updated August 2016]

General stuff:

Tell me how to evaluate the round, and that’s how I'll evaluate it. If you want to do that through a traditional V-VC framework, role of the ballot/judge args, theory, kritikal stuff, or anything else, that's fine. Just tell me what you’re winning and why it matters, and you shouldn’t have a problem picking up my ballot. The best thing you can do for yourself is give me a clear ballot story. Give me a clear ballot story. Give me a clear ballot story.

Some specifics:


 * Speed: I’m fine with speed, but PLEASE BE CLEAR. I will yell clear as many times as you need, but realize that if I yell clear, I probably didn't catch what you just said. Start out at maybe 70% your top speed, and go from there. I’m not the best at flowing, but I’ll try to keep up. Slowing down on author names and points you want me to get down helps.


 * Tricks: If you want to read a tricks AC or something to that effect, don't blitz through it. Nothing makes me more upset than having you spend 4 minutes telling me why one sentence at the top of the AC means I auto-affirm or that all NC offense goes away. You can pick up my ballot with a strat like this, but be tricky, not an ass.


 * CX is one of my favorite things about LD. Interact with your opponent. Don’t be rude. CX IS BINDING.


 * Policy stuff (plans, CPs, PICs, DAs): I ran this stuff. I know how it works. If you want to read it, go for it. Weigh.

> **__CAVEAT TO RUNNING K'S IN FRONT OF ME__**: I take critical debate and the value it has for debate very seriously. That said, the conclusions of some critical positions, just like traditional normative positions, can be dangerous when portrayed incorrectly. A disingenuous, poorly executed, ridiculous, or misrepresented kritik will upset me greatly. If you run Nietzsche to say that racially motivated violence and raping weak women or anything like it should be celebrated as an exercise of strength, you're doing it wrong and I will nuke the ever-loving hell out of your speaks. Because of how much I enjoy and value the literature, I want to see these positions presented in only the best ways. Do it well or don't do it at all. Don't assume that I'd rather vote for a mediocre K than an excellent practical reason or util position.”
 * Kritikal stuff: To quote Eli Hymson, “I was a K debater my senior year…I'm a huge Nietzsche fan and know more about his work than any other area of "critical" philosophy used in debate.


 * Theory: I prefer not to judge theory heavy debates because often times debaters go blindingly fast through analytics and extempted standards and it's hard for me to catch everything and nearly impossible to call for what I missed after the round. **[NEW]** **I am a fan of smart, strategic theory with well-warranted and clear standards. I am not a fan of bullshit, frivolous theory that is run solely because you have no idea what else to do.** That said, I have and will vote on theory, and here's my take on it.
 * If you’re reading theory, please weigh between standards. It makes it infinitely easier to vote on a clean theory flow than trying to follow muddled turns and extensions. Try to make the theory flow as clear as possible.
 * My threshold for it is pretty low, but if you're running a shit ton of frivolous theory shells, I won't be happy. For example, on the Sept/Oct 2014 topic "Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased", I voted off of "aff can only generate offense from organ procurement, not organ donation." If that debater had also read "aff must run a plan" and disclosure theory, and won theory, I would've voted for him, but given him shit speaks. Just be smart about what you choose to run in front of me.
 * I default to competing interps and drop the debater. These are VERY soft defaults—meaning I will only use them if no argument is brought up in the round. I do like to see more interesting theory debates than stock “plans bad, plans good” shells.
 * As far as RVIs go, I think there are ways to handle theory so that an RVI is not needed i.e. I meets means theory goes away, he/she violates too means theory's a wash, etc. I think there are also ways to generate offense on theory without needing an RVI. If your opponent reads competing interps and drop the debater, and you read a competing interp and you win that that is a better interp for debate, then you win the theory debate, and I should drop your opponent. If you turn their standards and prove that they are being more unfair or more uneducational than you, and they read a fairness or education voter, then by the logic of their voters, I have to drop them.
 * In terms of whether theory comes before other layers in the round, here's my take: If theory is being run on a position/norms, then theory comes before that position/norm because it's asking whether or not that position should be allowed in the first place. Otherwise, there's no reason why it should come first. For example, if the neg reads an NC, and a K, and the 1AR reads theory that's not on the K, the 2N could argue K before theory. If theory is being read on the K, the theory debate has to be had to be determined whether or not the K should be allowed to be run in the first place, so theory comes first. Same applies to metatheory. Theory on theory comes before theory on substance. However, I have been persuaded that the benefit of critical discussion outweighs the marginal abuse story coming out the theory shell. My views are soft defaults. Argue what you want, and if you do it well, you'll win my ballot.


 * Evidence: I will call for it after the round if it becomes an issue. If you’re running something that is really evidence-heavy, or you want to have a debate reliant and heavy evidence clash, then PLEASE WEIGH!! **I need you to tell me why what you’re winning means you win the round.**


 * Performances/micropol/anything else I didn’t cover: Please feel free to run any sort of performance/unorthodox position in front of me. As long as you give me a clear ballot story, I can vote on it.

Some other things:
 * Be nice to novices, and you’ll get better speaks. You were at that point once too. Be confident and assertive, but don’t mock or demean your opponent. Make debate inclusive. **[NEW]** This also applies to running things like K's, policy stuff, or theory in front of a debater you can reasonably expect to not have any experience. If you are going to run this stuff, fine, but do it in a way that provides a learning experience for the novice.


 * Please be comfortable and have fun in round. I don’t care if you sit or stand, or what side you sit on.


 * If you wrote a position in the middle of the night thinking "Man, I'll never get to run this in an actual round," I am probably the judge that will buy it. Feel the room out and know the situation. Like don't read some crazy shit in front of a novice. But do whatever you want. Seriously. It's your round.


 * **[NEW]** The more I've thought about debate and the impact it's had since I graduated, the more I realize that winning rounds is secondary to the education you get from engaging in the practice. Not only researching and writing cases beforehand (though that education helps tremendously), but practice in engaging with different value systems, understanding how they interact, and communicating effectively has undoubtedly helped me in the years since high school. Learning how to win and how to lose are important, too, and I remember going to tournaments with the goal of winning as many rounds as possible, but don't lose sight of what's really important. Enjoy debate. Seriously. Have fun.
 * P.S. This should not be taken as some sort of tacit "education trumps fairness" arg in a bullshit theory shell you use just so you can win. If I hear you say "I can be abusive because in your paradigm you say winning or losing doesn't matter and it's just engaging in the activity that provides benefit," you literally don't get the point and I will probably drop you and, to quote Eli again, "nuke the ever-loving hell out of your speaks."