Anaya,Jesus

The holy grail to get my vote and speaker points. Before I begin, here's a little bit about my background and correlation with debate:

Debated LD for 2.5 years in high school.

While I did not debate Policy in high school, I came to know the logistics of it my high school junior year. I have been judging Policy ever since. So, approximately 4.6 years in the RCC and LCC circuit at Chicago's CDL.

I debated Parliamentary Debate in college for 2 years. I kinda' retired debate since but I'd get on it once in a while.

Anyways, here's my paradigm.

**Speaker points:** Debate is much more than just eloquent speaking and speeding 20 arguments in 5-8minutes. Be COHERENT when speaking. While I am generally okay with speed, you must be clear or I'll stop you. I tend to give higher speaker points when you extemporaneously speak your last speeches. What do I mean? Don't just read cards, use your knowledge and understanding of the arguments made in the rebuttals and constructive. During your R's, if you plan on reading cards, take at least 10 seconds to link them to your wining argument, don't just read them to fill up time. What gets you high speaks? Using your own words and analysis. Take your time and explain. Depth over Speed/Breadth. I generally come into a round with a Tabula Rasa mindset so you can see how easily it is for you to get my vote.

**Kritiks**/Perfomance/Narratives/Critical I'm generally okay with them. If you go for K, performance, narrative or anything in that nature, you better have established and won the framework debate. If you're running those types of speeches, whether AFF or NEG, please do yourself a favor and know it from beginning to end. Don't lose yourself and find yourself in a situation where you misinterpret or fail to understand the philosophical arguments. Most importantly, If you're presenting any of the above, please shower me with link analysis. Make that your priority.

**Counterplans** I'll consider them in the round. Establish why I should prefer your plan over AFF's early in the round. If you're AFF, make it your priority to establish early in the round if NEG's CP is conditional or unconditional. Believe it or not, this would save you in the round, not just time but my vote, if you decide to drop it and NEG decides to go for it.

**Topicality** You better present your interpretation coherently, it better not be muddled. If scattered, you're just asking for a disaster. Please tell me how AFF violates T or how they don't meet your interpretation. Walk me through the standards, don't just speed through them. Why is your Interpretation superior? At the end, tell me why I should vote T. All in all, if you're running a T, I better hear the terms: Interpretation, Violations, Standards, Voting Issue. With me, you win T if you have won the interpretation debate.

**Theory Arguments** Honestly, I believe any argument can be won with a little bit of theory. Shape the round for me early in the debate with theory and BAM, you won my heart. Tell me how your specific theory argument is a crucial check to the AFF, or the round for that matter.

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Structure your theory arguments in a way where I am able to identify which issue I should prioritize as a judge.

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**Impact Calculus** If you utilize impact calculus from beginning to end, you have already earned yourself great speaks. Better yet, have already earned yourself a winning argument. When evaluating winning arguments, I would prefer that you do so using impact calculus and emphasizing the terms: Magnitude, Timeframe, Probability.

<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: small;">**The Round as a Whole** When it comes to summarizing my RFD, I tend to vote on who the better thinking and analyzing team is. Sure, you dropped and argument, but that doesn't assure that the opposing team will win on it or win the round. If you fail to explain to me why I should extend your argument with analysis, I will not vote on it. During the 2AR and 2NR, it's especially important for me to hear the term "voting issue" and highlight why and how you ought to get that specific voter. It makes it easier for me as a judge to centralize my decision. Most importantly, it will let me know as a judge that you have acknowledged your strengths and weaknesses for that round, which is what I want for you to know at the end of the day. Have fun!