Medina,+Jose

LD paradigm:

Things I like:


 * **Clear positions.** Obscurity isn't as cool as it is cut out to be by your peers. If you want to be esoteric, please be very concise and try to have some sort of central unifying theme (this is usually what your V/VC is for!). It's easier to follow a debate when there's a central ideology that can be followed within the debate that I can trace my evaluation back to.
 * **The line-by-line debate.** I think it makes the round much more clearer to evaluate; I want to be able to write down what arguments were responded to on the flow.
 * **Signposting.** I really appreciate it when I know where to flow arguments and responses to arguments to. Again, it makes the round very clear for me; I hate to see responses floating around on the flow that I can't put next to an argument. This type of ambiguity makes the round painful to decide.
 * **Extensions.** Please extend your arguments (whether they're arguments from the constructive or turns on your opponent's case) in your rebuttals. My absolute biggest pet peeve in debate is when debaters do not extend arguments. Just say "extend __because__ " and you will be rewarded. Do not extend through ink; if you try to extend an argument your opponent responded to, you need to respond to the response before you can extend it.
 * **Justifications.** Justify your framework, impacts, extensions, cross-applications, potential theory, kritiks, everything.
 * Critical literature—only if you can explain it well. I don't want to do the work for you. I have some general knowledge about postmodernism and cultural theory; if you don't know how to explain the argument well, it won't work to your favor very well.
 * **Evidence.** Please warrant your arguments. This is expected from all debaters. Although this is rather obvious, I feel that it's necessary to mention.
 * **Crystallization.** This is one of the things I like the most. Please let me know your voting issues in your final speeches. They don't all have to be said at the end; you can signpost along the way, but please be very specific to the reasons as to why you won the round. Along these same lines,
 * **Decision calculus.** Provide one. Why am I voting for you? Why is your framework better? Why should I vote for your standard? Why do your impacts outweigh? Please make this clear.
 * **Cross-ex.** I used to take notes during CX and keep my ears open for concessions, however, it proved difficult to continue to do this without overlooking some key aspects of the cross-ex. Be clever, get concessions, make the round easier for you to win.
 * **Being natural.** Do what you're good at, avoiding doing what you're not good at. Don't force anything, don't repress anything (unless it's completely negative).
 * **Entertainment.** Entertainment is sweet! Be charismatic. Be friendly. Make a few jokes. Don't be completely informal (with all due respect to the activity), but have fun. That's what debating should be about. It should be an intellectual discussion between two friendly people, not a shout-fest between two angsty individuals. Being a funny jerk is usually cool, as long as you don't cross the line/make your opponent feel bad.

Things I'm okay with:


 * **Speed.** I judge PF, LD and Policy Debate, so I'm used to hearing a variety of different speeds. I don't really enjoy speed in constructives, but I tend to like hearing speed in rebuttals. The only thing I ask of debaters that find it necessary to spread is to slow down on authors, and on taglines. If I can't flow the argument, I won't be using the argument to evaluate how the round went later on. Use your better judgment when going fast.
 * **Theory.** I'm okay with this, as long as 1) there's abuse, and 2) the theory is explained well. Theory blips—just like any other blips—aren't going to be very effective when creating your offense. If developed, then I will consider it in my evaluation of the round.
 * **Kritiks.** Same story as theory; if the kritik is un(der)developed, then it's not going to get you anywhere. Please provide a link for the kritik and why it is relevant to the topic/your opponent's case position. I need an alternative. Don't make the alternative abusive (i.e. utopia, zero capitalism, reject the Affirmative, etc.), I prefer practical arguments with greater impacts. A kritik without an alternative is essentially just a disadvantage. If you want me to vote on the kritik, please, have an alternative.
 * **Unorthodox case structures.** It's okay if you don't follow the traditional case structure as long as you justify why the structure you're using is better.

Things I don't like:


 * **Performative contradictions.** This involves spreading through a constructive and having a minute left on the timer. Your speaks will suffer.
 * **Elitism.** Please, don't be pretentious. I will be annoyed.
 * **Abuse.** Be reasonable with your performance.
 * **Standardless debates.** I want a standard to weigh with. If your opponent provides it and you adhere to it, your speaks won't suffer. If there is none provided, it's not going to be a good time for anyone.
 * **Negative cop-outs.** "If my opponent can't affirm you presume negative!" No. You need offense coming from somewhere. Plenty of debaters consider negating the easy-way out. I think that affirming and negating are equally challenging, and have equal responsibilities in the debate to create both offense and defense.
 * **Technical debates.** These are annoying. I'm not particularly fond of using jargon as all-encompassing concepts to refute arguments. If you use a lot of technical terms, you better be prepared to explain all of them, because you have to explain them. Stray away from this: I measure arguments and coherency more than I measure your ability to throw around buzzwords.
 * **Know-it-all attitudes.** If you don't know something that your opponent is saying, ask for clarification. If you don't know something your saying, that's a problem that'll be difficult to prevent overall. Avoid running a case that you have difficulty explaining and understanding. It happens more often that you would believe. I prefer simple arguments that you can make and succinctly summarize in your final speech than critical, complicated arguments that you half-know about.
 * **Undeveloped arguments.** I don't like blips, I don't enjoy 15 second theory shells, I don't like 5 a-priori arguments ran in a 30 second shell. This is because these arguments lack substance the majority of the time. Please, make sure all of your arguments are developed. This encompasses all arguments, whether from your case or your rebuttals; I do not like to hear "drop my opponent's second contention, moving on..." develop the reason. If the argument was unaddressed, mention that it was unaddressed.

Policy paradigm: Same as LD. I'm partial to Lacan/Nietzsche arguments.

If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me an e-mail: josemedinaexists@gmail.com