Vera,+Michael

**The University of Texas at Dallas ’20**
 * Law Magnet ’16**

**General:** Don't assume I know all the nuances of your arguments. Needless to say, you should probably explain your argument anyways. I evaluate all arguments. I think like most judges I like to believe that I evaluate debate from an unbiased position.

**Specifics:** **Case:** You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are fun.

**Topicality:** I enjoy good T debates. Unfortunately, T debates are normally really messy, so the team to really put the debate into perspective and be very clear on how the two worlds interact first generally wins. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.

**DAs**: DAs are also a core debate argument. I am a big fan of politics DA. Specific DAs are always a plus. I default to an offense/defense paradigm but I think an aff can win on defense alone if they making arguments about why having to have offense is bad.

**Counterplans:** I think counterplans are a fundamental part of debate. Well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.

**Kritiks/ K AFFs:** Over the past couple years I have opened up towards the K a lot. I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. I refuse to do that work for you regardless of my previous knowledge. I have no problem with teams running untopical affs as long as they can win that it’s good to do so. However, I will vote on framework if the aff/neg wins it produces a better model for debate.

**Theory:** I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard. I am unlikely however to vote on cheap shot theory arguments \ were little to no warrants are presented example “condo-vote strat skew and education”.

**Things that are good and you should probably have/do** Impact Comparison If...then statements Confidence Flagging important issues in debate Jokes Respect Good/Strong CX questions and answers

**Things I kinda believe** Tech over Truth Smart Analytics can beat evidence Uniqueness probably decides the direction of the link Uniqueness can overwhelm the link New 1AR arguments are probably inevitable and good to some extent Prep time stops once you save the speech to your flashdrive