Reyes,+Joseph

//** I debated 3 years at W.T. White High School. Competed in the Dallas UDA, TFA, and some UIL. Highly successful in the Dallas UDA.Qualified for the NAUDL Nationals my junior and senior year. Junior year broke to octos as a 9th seed and my senior year broke to octos as a 5th seed and was 19th place speaker. **//

//** I am now in my second year at SMU. I've debated about six tournaments with varying levels of success. **//

//** I'm coming into my second year of judging. I've judged at both the novice and varsity level at TFA tournaments across the Dallas area. **//

//** Affirmatives- In terms of the two types of AFFs that are typically run, I prefer the more policy oriented aff. That is not to say that I will totally vote down an aff with critical advantages or the more activism oriented affirmatives, but in a debate that comes down to competing frameworks, both sides need to have a clearly defined and impacted interpretation debate. **// //** Being someone that isn't as immersed into the high school topic as you are, I would like jargon and the like to be kept at a minimum. There is some stuff that is somewhat universal like shortening hegemony to heg, economy to econ, and etc. This is so that when I'm stuck in a big case debate, I know exactly what's going on and the likelihood of your point getting across. This will change as it gets later into the debate season ****.**//

//** When answering: **//

//** Dis Ads: I will have complete sympathy when you do not have specific answers to some Dis Ad. You still have your case. Use it. As for impact turns, you will have a difficult debate trying to tell me nuclear war is good for the human race, environment, and/or aliens. Other viable options in this field of arguments include dedev and possibly ice age. **// //** On Politics- I will listen to your theory on politics and your perms on politics. Not the most persuasive way to get out of politics, but if it works for you, so be it. **//

//** Counter Plans: Make sure solvency deficits are clearly defined. **// //** Perms: be clear on perms. I know you like to blaze through them because the negative can't hear them, but the judge needs to know them. And of course, explain the significance of each. Counter plan theory stuff is cool if you make sure the judge knows what's up. These are difficult round winners, but they're good to get the counter plan out of your hair. I need a good abuse story if you want me to reject the team. **//

//** Topicality: If the negative outdebates you on the interpretation level, no matter how ridiculous it may be, reasonability will not be enough. Competing interpretations bad is a hard sell for me. Unless it is an interpretation that severely limits the topic, it won't work on its own. I typically believe topicality is pretty important, in that regard. Reverse voting issues are a tough sell if they're geared toward T being read is "time skew" and "shifts focus of debate" args. **//

//** Kritiks: Keep things organized and don't get bogged down in the vocabulary. Your case outweighs arguments will only work if you tell me why I need to follow your framework, i.e. util, ontology, etc. **//

//** Negatives: My negative strategies have always been geared toward having a mix of a lot of different arguments. I have always had Topicality, DAs, CPs, and Kritiks coming out of the 1NC. I am more familiar with the more policy oriented arguments, but critical arguments are by no means a no go area for you. **//

//** Topicality: Unless the plan is super whacko nuts, don't run a T on every word of the resolution. I will likely tune you out and winning will be very difficult. In terms of reading/going for T is speeches. Be clear and efficient when going through the arguments. I understand the importance of trying to get as many arguments as you need in the speech, but what is more important is the judge being able to flow. See above for more details. **//

//** Kritiks: I am familiar with the more generic kritiks. Security, cap, biopower, and Nietzsche. Anything past that I need a more thorough explanation and flushing out of link scenarios, impacts, and the alt. In terms of framing the alt, I would like to know specific alt solvency and what the world looks like post-alt. If there is some discrepancy in terms of what the world looks like post alt, then explain why. When answering perms, just like the aff, impact the perms and explain why they're bad. Oftentimes, answers to the perms will be the same, I totally understand, but if there is one perm that is completely different from the rest, then this strategy won't work. When running severance perms bad, unless you do a good job at impacting it, it is difficult to get rid of the perm this way. Typically with kritiks, if you can't explain it in lame man's terms, then I don't think you get it. **//

//** DisAds: This is targeted toward the link level debate. The more specific the better. If you have to stretch to have a link story, it'll be difficult for me to buy your awesome DA outweighs the case analysis. **//

//** Counter Plans: Much like the alt, have the solvency evidence. Be sure to answer the aff solvency. You may be winning that the solvency to the cp is awesome, but if you haven't disproven the aff plan is bad or won't work, then it won't really work. There needs to be a unique reason why the CP is better than the plan for whatever reason you chose. When answering theory, I will likely buy your condo good stuff if you have only one advocacy, but will be much more difficult the more and more advocacies you have. **//

//** This is all subject to change and questions before round are always welcome. **//