Pronouns: He/Him

Email: nlombardo2004@gmail.com add me to the chain, feel free to shoot any questions my way

About me: I debated from 2017-2022 at Tuloso Midway and competed in LD, Policy and Congress and have qualified to Nationals aswell as TFA and UIL State

Note: I have Aspergers, as a result my handwriting and fine motor skills are poor, keep this in mind when spreading, if you are clear on tags and authors I should be fine but if you see me with my pen down slow down please, If I'm on the email chain this isnt as big of a problem but I really don't want resort to looking at the speech doc

TLDR: Have fun and dont be a jerk, debate how you want to debate chances are I'll be fine with it aslong as it's not problematic and hurts the debate space

LD:

Quick Prefs

LARP:1

Trad:1

Theory: 3

Tricks:4

K: 3

Specifics

LARP: These debates are always really fun, I'm a sucker for really creative Adv CPs and DAs are always welcome always like a up to date politics DA.

Trad: It's fine, I can judge it I feel like these rounds are typically the most boring but it's how I debated for half of my career so your fine. Make sure to extend your FW and tell me why it matters winning FW does not win you the round, using FW to filter offense in and out in a strategic way wins you the round. Please have your value be terminal. Contentions are cool ig just extend stuff properly.

T/Theory: I hate T and Theory debates I think it's generally a waste of time especially in LD please use this sparingly. That being said I prefer competing interps I think bc of time restrictions RVIs only in are a thing (only in LD) but can be convinced otherwised either send the shell or dont spread through it I'll probably miss it. I don't vote on stupid theory like dresscode/30 speaks. Disclosure and Condo are good

K: If your running cap go for it anything else explain to me the lit like I'm a 5 year old. I generally don't like K Affs so take that as you will

Tricks: Run at your own risk, don't expect me to catch your 5th spike on your subpoint Q, seriously though if your running tricks don't spread you're just asking me to miss something

Policy:

Quick Prefs:

LARP: 1

T: 2

Theory: 2

K: 3

K aff: 4

Specifics:

DAs: always good, the more specific the link the better, have good uniqueness and its 2022 I wanna see midterms

CPs: I like, make sure you have both an external and internal N/B, open to CP theory please don't run a plan text and call it a CP, honestly 1 card CPs are kinda cringe too.

T: T is cool I prefer competing interps but can be convinced to vote on reasonability either send the shell or dont spread through it I'll probably miss it. I much prefer case specific Ts but generic ones are fine if they are debated well

Ks: If your running cap go for it anything else explain to me the lit like I'm a 5 year old, I am more open to Ks in policy bc you have ample time to explain lit and actually engage in dialogue.

K Affs: Feel free to run but I'll be honest my experience here is lacking take that as you will

Theory: I thin you should run theory on CPs and Ks pretty much always if you have time its a fun debate, I don't vote on stupid theory like dresscode/30 speaks. I think Disclosure and Condo are good

Misc: if you can fit a Code Geass, Evangelion, or Star Wars reference that makes since in your rebuttals or tags I'll give .2 speaks and if you email me a drawing of your pets i'll give .3 speaks

I am a communications judge. No Kritiks please. I’m cool with some theory, not all of them (not a fan of disclosure theory).

I focus on enunciation; speak clear taglines, regardless of flashing the judge your case, it is still a speaking event.

Note: there’s a difference between fast speaking and spreading. Just make sure to enunciate your tags, signpost, etc., and you’ll be fine. if I hear heavy breathing because you’re reading too fast, it’s a problem.

Having said that, I like analytics. You can use evidence/cards and cross apply them, just ensure you provide a clear explanation as to why you’re able to cross apply them. You can’t just say “cross apply my C1 to his DA” and move on; tell me why it applies. Make sure to emphasize how it cross applies.

I like to follow the flow. I expect a good, yet understandable rebuttal. Please include me (the judge) in the email chain, if any. (antonio.valdez@psjaisd.us)

please do not be rude. If you become aggressive within the round, expect to see low speaks. It’s one thing to attack an argument, it’s another thing to attack your opponent.

Last, I do not disclose. Tournaments typically run late and I don't wanna add to the problem.

LD -

Framework ( Value/Criterion) is important, but so is the contention level debate. I way both sides when writing a ballot. I think LD is primarily a philosophical debate. You do not have to prove how something will be done just that it should be done. Saying that , claims of impacts should be supported with evidence or reasonable logic.
Be careful with your terminology I am an experienced coach and I know the difference between a disad and a solvency issue.
‘
Be careful if you are going super progressive. I firmly believe you should “Debatethe resolution”,not some random issue that you feel is more important. The entire Speech and Debate community voted on theses resolutions, so if you think you know better, you should provide a very good reason.
I appreciate creativity in your arguments, but stick with the resolution.

Policy - Although I am typically a more conservative (i.e. Stock issues) judge I am open to all forms of debate argumwents . I vote predominantly on clash and impact. Stock issues are a must and that includes topicality.

If you make arguments they must be linkked to your opponents case. If the link iis weak, it is going to be harder to win your argument if your opponent points that out. Extend your arguments thruout rebutttals and that inludes the Affirmative case.

I am OK with K's as long as you provide a viable link to your opponents case. See previous comment regarding links.

I am ok with speed as long as I can understand you. dont yell at me and dont wisper eithe. I f I cant understand you I dont folw you. If I don't flow the argument, it never happened.