Buitrago,+Helena

Experience: Member of the policy debate team at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart during high school. Currently a member of the Stanford Parliamentary Debate team. Things you should know if I’m your judge:
 * 1) I’m willing to vote on both “policy” and “critical” considerations. Make sure the kritik is not generic and applies to the specific advantages of the plan.
 * 2) Debates should be heaviest at the link level— explain to me why you get to access your impacts. I know nuclear war is bad, but it doesn’t help me if both teams are claiming to prevent it. I need a clear analysis explaining why your evidence is better or your scenario for war is more probable.
 * 3) I adamantly believe topicality is a voting issue. I think it is the burden of the neg to prove the aff is unreasonable—preferably do this in terms of limits. That being said, I am also willing to vote on “our counter-interpretation is a bit better.”
 * 4) Theory: To win on theory, you need to persuade me to “reject the argument and the team.” I am not easily persuaded by claims that PICS and conditionality are bad. I also give the aff quite a bit of leeway on perm arguments and am unlikely to vote on severance or intrinsicness.
 * 5) I’ll flow all speeches and likely call for evidence after the round. In terms of evidence comparison, warrants and qualifications are important; use them to your advantage. I also give weight to well-reasoned analytical arguments.