Baez,+Alex

Bib : I Debated for the Law Magnet from 2012-2016, didn’t debate as much my senior year. I now Debate for UTD as a Sophomore. I have been coached by some smart-ass people that has shaped the way I view debate as an activity including Kris Wright, Dustin Darby, Scott Herndon, Phil Samuels, Matt Munday, Jacob Loehr and Anthony Ogbuli. If my Judge Philosophy leaves any questions, just contact me and I’ll be more than happy to answer any concerns.

How I View Debate: I think debate is a pedagogical space that allows for there to be deliberate discussion of what is going on in the world. I think debate is a game simply because there is a winner and a loser and you answer what the other team has stated to win the debate, it’s an educational game that allows contestation to push us to become better researchers, public speakers and self-affirming people. I think there are structural problems with debate like coaching staffs and resources, but that doesn’t mean I vote for you because you’re from a smaller school… it just means those arguments are persuasive and I agree with the general thesis of those arguments.

How I evaluate debates: Offense/Defense Paradigm – gotta have offense, or give me a reason to vote on presumption and what presumption means in the debate and why it flips in your favor. Framing Issues – make these clear in the 2nr and 2ar, give me a lens in which I should evaluate the debate that is reasonable and warranted – if not I will default to a logical policymaker that wants to save as many lives as possible regardless of race, sex, gender, etc., keeping people alive for them to decide their personal ethics is the way I frame a debate unless told otherwise. Impact Calc – If there is no impact Calc you will probably tell from my decision how annoyed I am and frustrating the decision was, if the debate was close, if you blew the team out the water I probably won’t be as annoyed but your speaker points will surely show your lack of debate skills in terms of impact Calc. Impact calculus is important for your judge’s decision making process, it’s literally you telling me what impacts are relevant and why your impacts outweigh… please do impact calculus, if you don’t do any impact calculus I will not stand any post rounding, simple as that. If Death good or high theory fuck fuckery(S/o Jacob) is your thing, I wont say I’m not the judge for you, but it’s already an uphill battle, less for high theory K shit if you can explain it, it’s just that I am not well read in the literature and I wouldn’t want to put you in the situation to where you expect me to understand what you’re talking about throughout the whole debate, ya feel?

K Affs: I read K affs throughout high school debating for the Law Magnet, they’re my favorite 1AC’s and 2AR’s to watch writ large but can also be painful to watch. You should probably defend something? Like I don’t care if it’s an affirmation of self through the rez, if it’s a negation of the rez, a plan, an advocacy statement, give the neg something to work with because if not I am a lot more inclined to find Topicality arguments about stasis points, clash and contestation more persuasive. If your 1AC has music, that’s fine, but make sure your music isn’t on during your opponents’ speeches, unless it’s in conjunction with your argument, in that case please keep it down to where I can at least hear the other team, I will only ask once, after that I will give the other team more leverage than they probably deserve on “dropped” arguments, it’s your fault I couldn’t hear. If your music or spits or poems lose their purpose after the 1AC then rethink about your aff, rethink about your strategy, Music and poems and all that sound nice, but if they have no use throughout the debate I don’t understand why they were necessary? Unless your argument is about productivity bad and what not, then do your thing and explain it well.

Ks : 60% of my 2nrs were probably the K, fair to say I like the K. Specific Links are Dis ads to perm do both, any other perm requires a much more thorough explanation of how the links are Dis ads to the perm and not Dis ads to the aff. Link explanation is essential in order for me to understand what specifically about the aff was problematic, the more explanation and the more specific the better. Alts must resolve the Links and impacts, alts that don’t resolve any of the aff means the aff gets to leverage their aff against the K assuming they have won that they should be able to leverage their affirmative, which I find logically persuasive considering it would be strategically impossible to be aff in a world where the neg wins that the aff can’t leverage their impacts, the aff is forced to go for the perm every debate in that world and I don’t think that is great model of debate. Ontology, Epistemology, Genealogy, Etc., Explain why this comes first, explain why this counts as a framing issue, warrant this out and if you don’t win this framing then I will default to a policymaker that wants to save everyone in this world if possible, do the work I will not do it for you. Floating PIKS are Cheating unless you’re neg, if you’re neg more power to you, I love that shit, if you’re aff… point it out and make it a theoretical objection and a reason they lose the debate, if you can’t prove to me why it’s cheating then obviously, you won’t win my ballot. K Fuck-Fuckery : High theory like Bauldrillard, Nietzsche, DNG, etc. Put someone else through that misery please, if I am the chosen one for these debates then cool, just understand I am not deep in your lit and will require far more explanation from your part.

T: TOPICALITY! T is a lost form and people don’t go for it as often as they should, If an aff is not topical and you have given me an interp, with a violation and offensive reasons to prefer your interp, then you need to hold the 2AC to a high threshold considering it is a gateway issue, the aff on T has to prove they are topical, if you have a reason they don’t meet your interp and give me an offensive reason to prefer your interp, go for that shit in front of me, because more than likely the 2a is reading shitty blocks and daring you to go for it, do It, extra speaks for having T in the 2NR and winning the debate. I will reward good T debates. T vs K affs : Fairness against identity teams makes no sense and is borderline fucked up, there’s other things to say, Saying the aff’s incorporation of personal identity is not fair is not persuasive, innovate please. Read it though, I go for T vs non-topical affs all the time, Topical Version of the Aff is key in these debates sometimes, you might still win without a TVA, but TVA’s help when you’re neg.

CPs: The other 35% ish of my 2nrs were a CP and DA. I love a good adv cp and impact turn debate. I love Process Counterplans even though they’re cheating, steal that aff!(I’m a 2N If you couldn’t tell by now.) State’s, XO, Court’s - yes and no, probably solves all the aff, not sexy, but gets the job done. Multi Plank Cp – Cheating If you can kick all and any of the planks, probably solves all the aff and avoids the Solvency deficits though so use the cheating to your advantage. 2NC CPs – eh, okay, if the aff is new, then okay I see you, if the aff is not new, GO FOR THEORY IF YOU ARE AFF!

Dis Ads: Politics is the Dis Ad I have the most experience going for because it was probably the net benefit I went for in most 2NRs. Politics is dumb though, the Dis ad never makes any sense but what are you gonna do, the 2AR needs to point out the Dis ad story is probably not tied together. If you are neg, and the aff doesn’t make a link turn, this should be a framing issue if you are going for Ptix as a Net benefit to an aff. Relations Dis Ads are okay when specific to the aff, the links must be great, A+. Dis ads probably turn the case – explain this, have cards if you can, this is persuasive and sometimes can win you the debate absent an external impact. Theory: Perf Con, and Condo are reasons to reject the team. Other theoretical objections can be reasons to reject the team if I am persuaded. All the spots I have said “cheating” in this paradigm are reasons the aff should make a theoretical objection. If there’s three conditional advocacies or more in the 1nc, condo should probably be in the 1AR. If you’re going for Theory, 100% of the 2AR.

Speaker Points: If you have pre-round music, you are subject to speaker points going up or down depending on how good your music taste is, Sorry. If you have any Future in that playlist, you’re already doing well. If you are unclear I will say clear once and then speaks plummet after that. The 2ar should wax poetically, k aff or not, 2ars should have some kind of flow to them that are easy to follow. Re-reading ev back to your opponents and explaining how it flows your way will help your speaks a lot. T in 2nr also gets you good speaks if you win, Theory in the 2Ar gets you good speaks.

Add me to Email Chains : Alexbaez18@gmail.com - Thanks!