Ortiz,+Kate

Kate Ortiz City University of New York High School Debate Experience: 3 years College Debate Experience: 4 years Rounds Judged on the Poverty Topic: 10+

I have no predispositions against any argument you wish to run. I see myself neither as a policy maker or activist. I'm just a person with a piece of paper which asks me the question "which side did the better debating". So it's up the debaters to persuade me which framework I should lean towards.

I consider myself as a non-verbal judge. I tend to make facial expression that would show that I'm either impressed, confused, aggravated etc. So if you're going on the line-by-line and see me looking stumped, chances are I don't know what you are talking about.

Alright now for the substance:

__♥Topicality♥__

It's a voting issue. Answer it. I think just running the argument "Topicality=mass violene/genocide" is not enough to win the debate on the Affirmative side. RVI's are not a voting issue. If your Affirmative is straight up not topical, then debate the merits why their definition and/or standards are bad for the quality of debate. For the Negative: don't just repeat and extend standards, impact them, clash with Affirmative's arguments. I can't seem to pin myself down to default to either reasonability or competing interpretations so that's up in the air for you.

__♥Disads♥__ If there's a good link then you're good. If not, it'll be an uphill battle from here on. I'm from my coaches' school of thought where a poorly researched DA can be beaten through analytics alone. Not to mention they become really tedious because I know the evidence you're has little to no relevance to the Affirmative.

__♥Counterplans/Theory♥__ If it's competive, it's competive. If it's not, it's not. I've recently become disgruntled against conditional CPs. I think if you're running conditionality bad then you should have an interpretation. Same applies to the Negative if you're defending conditionality.

__♥Kritiks♥__

I'm familiar with most K args but it doesn't mean I know what you are talking about in the debate. Contextualize what the "Other" or "traversing the fantasy" means. I often find that even though debaters do the debate the link level- they often miss out on the impact and alternative levels. Which can be pretty devastating. Particularly in a world where the alternative says "reject" or "do nothing", you have to do the work to persuade me why the alternative is mutually exclusive from the Affirmative.

__♥Case♥__

If you got the juicy goods to destroy their plan then by all means do it.

__♥Performance♥__

I like performance. They're interesting, it doesn't force my head to be glued to my computer/paper. Though I think performances on the Affirmative should have some relevance to the topic.

I'll edit this more as the year continues. So have fun!