Alvarez,+Julian

Lake Highland Preparatory School '13 Stanford University '17 Conflicts: Lake Highland Preparatory School, Lynbrook High School 2/16/15

Background: I debated LD for Lake Highland Prep on the local, regional, and national circuits for four years. I went to NDF for two summers and NSD for one summer as a competitor. I competed at the TOC my senior year.

Preface: The point of this paradigm is to inform you of what I presume to be true about debate. I default to what I presume to be true about debate if these issues are not resolved in the debate. That’s the fun part of debate: you have the capacity to alter my views by winning arguments. My threshold for buying arguments does differ from argument to argument if debaters fail to compare them. As long as I understand an argument and it has a warrant, I am open to buying it. I haven't heard an argument I will not vote on, but that will probably change. If I don't understand what you are doing and I don't say clear, I will look confused. If I understand what you are doing and like your arguments, I will probably nod a bunch.

Speed: Speed is fine as long as I can understand you. I will say clear twice before I drop my pen and give you a bad look. I'm more lenient with other interjections like telling you to slow down. I have a fairly high threshold for clarity, so it might be good for you to go a little bit slower for me than your top clearest speed.

So called tricks: I evaluate the resolution as a truth statement by default. This means contingent standards/triggers, skep, and fun arguments like that are fair game in front of me unless your opponent excludes them. I prefer that these arguments be well-developed as opposed to blippy. Specifically on contingent standards, I prefer that these arguments flow from your position as opposed to being disconnected from it. If you want to run skep in front of me, make it interesting! Hearing about brains in a vat will probably make me sad. I have no qualms about evaluating a util debate or a more stock debate, but I have more experience dealing with framework and theory than on other parts of the debate. That being said watching framework debates all the time is going to get boring for me, and I may not be as well-read in the philosophical literature as you would like me to be. An argument has to be pretty morally repugnant for me to dock your speaker points for it.

Theory: I assume that theory frames substance, so I don't think it makes sense to wash theory. In any given round, if theory is a wash, I will try my best to resolve the theory debate. It is in your best interest to clearly win a theory debate in front of me. I am predisposed to theory being an RVI, but I don’t assume that I meets and other defense imply RVIs. I default to the text of the interpretation as opposed to its spirit (whatever that means), so go for semantic I meets in front of me. I will also evaluate offensive counter-interpretations. I feel like the debater accused of being abusive should run a counter-interpretation to clarify their position and defend it, so I default to competing interpretations. You can still win that theory is an issue of reasonability, so outlining what a reasonable view on theory is would be helpful for me in that case. Comparing the standards and voters well is a great way to resolve the debate for my ballot. What I mean by well is to speak to the strength of link from the standards to the voters and not engage in circularisms. I am inclined to think education and fairness are voters, and that fairness comes before education. I don’t think necessary but insufficient burdens are unfair, but you can convince me. Go for meta-theory if you think you can sell it clearly. Also, I am strongly disposed against voting on disclosure theory (or other arguments with out of round links for that matter), but I could vote on it if sufficiently persuaded.

Framework: I think the most important part of substance is the standards debate. I have no predispositions against particular standards. Remember to explain your standard and its function and meaning, or else I will be inclined to not vote with it in a pinch. The biggest problem with standards debate is that people fail to compare their standard to their opponent’s standard, so do that to resolve the debate if there's risk of both evaluative mechanisms being true. I don't like AFC, but I will buy it if you win it.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Presumption: <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Presumption occurs when neither side has proven the resolution true or false, or the resolution is incoherent. Permissibility determines what counts as offense back to the truth or falsity of the resolution, like if aff has to prove an obligation, then proving permissibility is enough to prove the res false. This is probably the part of my paradigm that is hardest to sway me from since I believe any other interpretation of these terms is wrong. I don’t presume either way in the absence of presumption arguments. Rather, I vote for whoever did the qualitatively better debating at the point where I would have to presume. You can make arguments to make me presume aff or neg. However, unless you prove terminal defense, you are going to be hard pressed to get me to vote on presumption unless you outline my ballot story off of it. I haven't judged enough to have a firmer stance on risk of offense vs. terminal defense yet, but I think terminal defense is possible. I’d prefer you not extend terminal defense on both sides and try to win off presumption, but I encourage you use presumption as offense for a trigger or to hedge against risk of offense.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Spikes: <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Surprisingly enough, spikes are arguments too and should have a claim, warrant, and impact articulated in the constructive and not added on in other speeches. Enumerate your spikes in some way, preferably with letters or numbers.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Policy arguments: <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Anything that suggests a policy option should have a text. I assume perms are a test of competition, not advocacy. I’m not a big fan of word PICs unless they're ironic. On plan debate, I assume plan focus as opposed to res focus. Be sure to compare your policy option to your opponent's or I will probably just vote on whoever generates the biggest, most probable impact to the framework in the round.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Kritiks: <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Kritks need a cogent framework, link, impact, and competitive alternative that has a text and is something besides “reject the aff” unless you have a good reason for your creativity. I'm not well read in continental literature, and most Ks I've heard confuse me to some extent. I think that arguments saying that kritiks come before theory are nonsensical by default, but you can convince me otherwise (especially if it's dropped).

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Pre-fiat arguments: <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">As long as they have a clear ballot story, specifically as to why winning these pre-fiat arguments merits you the ballot and not your opponent, go for them. In other words, why should your pre-fiat offense not only win you the round, but make your opponent lose the round? I think that making another debater lose a round for certain micropolitical goals is a bit sketchy, so ask me before the round if you're worried about it. That being said, if you win your ballot story, I will probably vote for you.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Extensions: <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">The amount of time you spend extending an argument should be proportional to the amount of time your opponent spent on it, assuming that your opponent made responses to it. If your rejoinder to arguments your opponent made includes explanation of your original argument, you don't have to repeat yourself in your extension. It won't hurt to give thorough extensions for each argument you go for, but don't feel obligated to give a full extension if the argument wasn't responded to well. If an argument was dropped, feel free to just extend the argument's claim and its function in the round, especially if you're the aff.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">CX and prep time: <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">CX and answers to questions in prep time are binding, but I'm ok with you correcting yourself as long as you say that you are correcting yourself. If your opponent asks for your case, you should make it available somehow to them. You can use CX as prep if both debaters agree on it before the round, but you should ask some questions in either case. I would really prefer if the debaters faced me instead of each other during CX. I also strongly prefer it if things are flashed over during prep time or speech time instead of any where else.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Evidence: <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Have cites! Slow down for author names, tags, and especially texts. I’ll call evidence if the meaning is disputed, but not otherwise unless you tell me to call it. I suck at flowing, so if I don't get an argument initially but know it was made in a prior speech, I may or may not give you leeway on re-explaining it depending on how close the new explanation is to my prior notion of the argument.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Perception: <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Perceptual dominance is nice and all, but being pleasant is more important. You can sit as opposed to standing but making eye contact and hand gestures helps your speaker points. SIGN POST.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Speaker points: <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">If you can show me why I should vote for you as clearly and requiring as little work as possible on my part, you will probably be happy with the speaker points I give you. Ask me well after the round for speaker points instead of directly after the RFD.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Things that help your speaker points: <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">- cool impact turns <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">- cool framework <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">- cool weighing <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">- cool evidence <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">- making me laugh <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">- adapting to my paradigm

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Things that hurt your speaker points: <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">- Ks or pre-fiat arguments that aren't extremely clear on how and why I vote for you <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">- collapsing the pre-fiat/post-fiat distinction (skep justifies taking my ballot! No) <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">- condescension <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">- language meant to exclude debaters, like slurs of any kind <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">- AFC <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">- disclosure theory, or any argument with a blatantly out of round link <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">- claiming that skepticism justifies evils <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">- saying substance comes before theory

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Good luck and most importantly have fun! If you have any questions ask me before the round or at julianoscar42@gmail.com.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">See also: <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Lonam, Terrence

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Sigalow, Martin

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Wilder, Bryan