Velasquez,+Clare

Clare Velasquez Nevada Union '05 University of Southern California '09

I haven't judged any rounds on the topic this year, so you will have to break it down for me a bit, but doing it f ast is fine, just be clear.

A few things you may want to know about me:

I think affs need to have a topical plan. I'd rather judge a substantive debate than a theory one, but will vote on it, if it's well explained.

I enjoy counterplan/case/disad debate, the more specific the better and I am more familiar with that genre of arguments. However, I am not against "non-traditional" arguments; I think you should run what you want, and go for the arguments you want, and will do my best to fairly weigh the debate in light of what was articulated during the debate, and not my own preferences. That said, if I don't understand your position, it will be difficult for me to vote for you, so be specific, and explain the concepts, the more obscure words, etc.

In my opinion, the "two trains crossing in the night" types of debates are difficult to judge and not fun to watch, so the more engaging and addressing the opposing arguments as directly as possible with specific examples, analysis and analogies, the better.