Mendizabal,+Alvaro

__**Experience**__ I debated at Notre Dame High School in Los Angeles, CA for about 4 years (Graduated 2009). I've been judging Open HS debates for about a two and half years now so I'm still new to judging. I've seen about 200 High School debates so far.

__**The Essentials**__ //Read Cards. Extend Evidence. Explain how the warrants in your evidence/arguments answer the other teams evidence/arguments. Explain how your evidence functions within the round. Most importantly, tell me what it means to vote AFF or NEG.//

Overviews should outline the following  1. Probability  2. Time Frame  3. Magnitude  4. Tuns Case (preferably with evidence)

Organize the debate  The __//uniqueness//__ debate.... The __//link//__ debate...  The __//internal link//__ debate...  The __//impact//__ debate...  The __//CP solvency / alternative//__ debate... (If necessary)

Against Counter Plans and Kritiks (//S.T.O.P////.//) <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">__ //Solvency Deficit// __ <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">__ //Theory// __ <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">__ //Offense// <span style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">﻿ __ <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">__ //Permutation// __

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">//Do this with all arguments, isolate the major components and extrapolate on them. This helps with the overall flow of the debate, and gives you the perception of being ahead. It will also minimize your chances of under-covering certain arguments, therefore increasing the likelihood of winning the ballot.//

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">__**Counter Plans**__ <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">I like creative ones. Advantage CPs, Different Actor CPs, PICs, and Multi-plank CPs are fine. Process CPs, Delay CPs, Consult CPs I don't like. I tend to side with the AFF on theoretical questions if both teams seem to be in stalemate.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">__**Disads**__ <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Don't have a problem with these arguments. I am a sucker for good Impact turn debates.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">__**Kritik**__ <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">NEG: Love the K. I have a high threshold for it though. The more specific the better. Isolate links to the affirmative. Drawing connections between your evidence and the other teams evidence should help this process. The more relevant you can make the criticism to AFF the better. Explain how the K turns every advantage of the AFF. Explain how the alt solves every advantage (if necessary).

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">AFF: The AFF should use their case to hedge against the K depending on the type of criticism. You read 8 mins of offense in the 1AC defend it! Attack the alternative. Without the alt the NEG doesn't have uniqueness for the 'DA part' of the K. Stick the NEG to a text to improve the perm debate (when NEG stick the AFF to a perm text as well). That can help minimize the link to the K, expose the weakness of the alternative, and it can be a viable 2AR strategy.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Framework: Explain its relation to the kritik, isolate a clear interpretation and its importance as the framing for the debate. Why should 'x' be evaluated before the other arguments?

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">__**Theory**__ <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">I tend to have more of a bias for NEG in terms of condo CP theory. I won't vote teams down because they read specific arguments, I'll almost always default to rejecting the argument. Don't just blurt out generic 'buzz' words and expect me to write down the explanation. Treat theory like a substantive argument. 'X' is abusive in this instance because... or 'X' is not abusive in this instance because... Reject the argument because... or Don't reject the argument because...

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">__**Topicality**__ <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">NEG: Prefer contextual interpretations. The interpretation needs to be explained well. Why is your interpretation good for the resolution/debate? Why are your standards good for debate? Talk about specific ground lost. Why is that ground important? Don't just rephrase the blocks without analysis.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">AFF: Make we meet arguments, use reasonability to to justify including your counter interpretation(s). Explain why your counter interpretation is good for the resolution/debate/topic specific education, why is it fair?

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">I'd be happy to answer specific questions before the round just ask.