Ruiz,+Emmanuel

Debate bio for those who think it affects judging Stuyvesant coach Dallas Jesuit ‘13-’17 I’ve been both the 2A and 2N

**Common Questions** **General thoughts** Warrants win championships. Ideally your warrants will be attached to evidence, but analytics that demonstrate that you know the topic/argument you’re reading are cool too. Evidence quality is really, really important. What’s a shitty card? Unqualified ev, underhighlighted ev, powertagged ev, etc. If your card has 10 words highlighted across 5 pages that you strategically highlighted to string together a sentence, then I’ll skim the unhighlighted parts for something that helps the other team. Otherwise I won’t consider it in my decision. IF YOU READ DOCTORED OR MODIFIED EVIDENCE- I will automatically drop you, I don't care if it wasn't you who cut it and you just got it from a camp file, you are responsible for all of the evidence you read in the round. Be a good wiki citizen- I'll give better speaks if I see that you keep your wiki updated with 1ACs and 1NC shells at a minimum (and let me know before the decision if you updated your wiki with stuff from the round) (but really let me know, only like 3 teams have taken advantage of extra points) Extinction is not a tag Negative arguments generally shouldn’t contradict, and they probably shouldn’t contradict the K. I’m very persuaded by the argument that neg contradictions give the aff greater leeway on the perm. I'm very expressive, but if it doesn't look like I'm buying your argument often it isn't that its a bad argument its just that you aren't explaining it especially well New affs bad is a very stupid argument CO2 ag is an incredibly stupid argument Everything I say below on specific arguments can be changed if you have a great argument or a great card. You can read the most abusive process counterplan you want if you got it by recutting their solvency advocate to say what the author intended. Otherwise I’m pretty attached to what I say below.
 * Yes I want to be on the email chain, emanruiz12@gmail.com
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">No I don’t take prep for flashing
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Speed is fine, but I like when speed is arguments communicated per minute, not words per minute
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Call me Manny, not judge
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">he/him

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Policy Affs** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The bulk of my debate experience was with these, but just because your warming and war advantage combo will give me a fuzzy feeling of nostalgia doesn't mean you have to do less to win it. Be careful with your internal link chains. I appreciate small policy affs that dodge links when they come from a lot of research into the topic. There's probably a threshold at which point the amount of distinct war scenarios you read stop being strategic and start being an easy vote for security. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**K Affs** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I don't think affs have to defend USFG action, but I really enjoy when they do. That being said, they probably should defend something. Make sure your method/advocacy/plan is clear, I dont like affs that just read a bunch of cards one or two of which may or may not be what the aff is saying should be done. Make sure your advocacy/method/plan reflects your solvency advocate. Have a solvency advocate. Have a defense of why your style of method/advocacy should be included in the topic that is more than just the state is bad.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Case debating** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">For the love of God do it. No solvency=No offense. There’s no NB to the perm, no link turn, no case outweighs if there’s no aff. Read more than just impact defense here, the internal links and solvency are often the weakest part of any aff. Loading several analytical args against case in the 1NC will slow most 2As down.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**DAs** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Are nice. A well debated disad will have a case specific link in the 1NC, a link wall in the block, and a couple of solid links in the 2NR. Impact calculus should be both why you outweigh and turn. I enjoy 1NR’s that are 5 minutes of the disad. Politics uniqueness should probably be no more than two weeks old, but even then I'm pretty skeptical of the politics DA given the current political environment

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**CPs** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Run them, use them for uniqueness, use them to point out solvency issues, whatever. CPs are great, they should have a solvency advocate unless their solvency came from a CX question or from a piece of 1AC ev. Net benefits should be external (disads to the plan) not internal (advantages to the counterplan) I’m not the biggest fan of process counterplans unless, again, there’s a great piece of evidence.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Ks** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Are cool. This is probably my weakest area of knowledge but I’ll do my best to update this portion of my philosophy as my knowledge of it grows. I’m very familiar with the standard bevy of Ks read by policy/flex teams (cap, security, colonialism, agamben, etc), decently familiar with fem/antiblack lit, and not too familiar with high theory. However I will do my best to understand when judging Ks I’m unfamiliar with (please take advantage of CX and the block to explain more thoroughly). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Some ticky tacky things- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- overviews over one minute are for weak 2Ns (put the arguments in your overview where they’re relevant on the flow); <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- I like link/internal link combos that explain how the aff specifically makes things worse rather than just being part of a problematic system <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- I am not a fan of the if-link-then-lose strategy where teams say if they win framework all they have to win is the link and not the alt <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- not a fan of frankenstein Ks where you mash a bunch of authors together, especially when the authors have very clearly distinct interpretations of power or why violence happens or different a priori questions <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- perm vs alt, alt vs aff should be argued with the language of disads-to and net benefits-to each. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">For the aff- <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- aff framworks that are basically “there should be no Ks” are stupid <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- there are more perms than just “perm do both” <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- make lots of no links and link turns based off of the 1AC that you don’t need new evidence for

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Topicality** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Is an argument about what the year of debates should look like. Reasonability to me is “how reasonable was it to expect this aff to be topical when writing it?” not “how close is the aff to the neg’s interp?” (cause then it would be a needless extension of the we meet debate). Limits, ground, etc are not impacts in and of themselves. Case lists are important, topical versions of the aff can be damning. I really really like topicality debates where it’s clear you had a vendetta against a specific sketchy aff and spend 5+ minutes of the block on it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Also, I like plan flaws (acronyms bad, capital F and G, no period, Scribner's Error, etc). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">(No that does not mean I like spec args)

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Theory** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">One conditional advocacy probably isn’t a voter, two could be, three or more and you should at least have condo in the 1AR. I am probably more likely to vote on theory args that aren't condo than the average judge, but that doesn’t mean you can toss it in for 30 seconds of your 2AR. I can be persuaded that certain abusive practices require the ballot in order to ameliorate the damage caused to the debate or to dissuade it in the future. The more specific your violation the better- “multiple contradictory conditional worlds” is more persuasive than condo. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Feel free to ask questions before the round.