Liriano,+Geordano

Contact info: Geordano.Liriano196@gmail.com


 * Note: if you read Pessimism in a Bane voice the 1N/A will be in contention for a 30 in the round***

I attended and debated for the Bronx School for Law, Government and Justice and competed competitively in the high school circuit my Junior and Senior year making it to Quarters of the NDCA (2013) and Octos of the Tournament of Champions (2013), Finals of Harvard (2014) and the Lexington Invitational (2014) and Semis of the Wake Forest Early Bird (2013). Oh, and I'm currently debating and attending the University of Iowa in west bubble fuck america.

I like to think of myself as a well versed scholar but I don’t feel comfortable adding to any explanation made in the debate. This is especially true for teams who change their entire strategy to “accommodate” a judge.

Framing questions are very important to evaluating any debate round. If a team wins a structural impact but doesn’t necessarily handle the moral/ethical objections to said impact or framing question it would make my ballot very difficult.

Topicality
Debate it out. But…
 * Potential abuse is ehhh
 * Aff’s should prove how their somehow grounded in the resolution
 * Make sure your interpretation makes sense

Performance/Critique debate
Know what you’re talking about and it’ll be good. Try not to rant, no one ever knows what to flow and it might not be an argument. …Make arguments…

Left on left debates
Love these debates, I think there is a lot of potential in the community to create both new scholarship and solidify existing scholarship. This takes a lot of work and I am willing to hear a high theory debate but juts remember to make comparisons between the things you’re saying and what their saying about you. These debates go a few ways but the most common is the high theory debater who doesn’t say “Link turn/Impact/Framing/alternative etc.”

Left on Right debates
Don’t think I’ll vote for the critique every round. I vote for the team who does the better debating, I would de-emphasize “better debating” for this wiki entry because that is contingent upon what the “better debating” is in the specific round. With that said, tell me what the better debating looks like. If reformism and policy engagement is better let me know why and how you’ve a) done that or b) they haven’t.

Miscellaneous & promises to you

 * Ø I will take note of Cross ex arguments and who/how/when they speak. I think CX //is// a speech but it has obscure power relations between partners and opponents which is something I always take note of, An female debater being spoken over is an example I see constantly in debates and one I do not like.


 * Ø I will always flow your speech, doesn’t matter if it’s a poem, song or non-verbal movement


 * Ø Ethics violations are about ETHICS, not mistakes. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote on an ethics violation but that I will take into account how the action in question was done. With that said, please say “mark the card [last word]”.

For more on the Bane challenge please review this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L39b5rI7XoM

Also note that the Bane challenge is limited to tags not reading of the card. If you can Bane in cx you'll win a raffle ticket to making it to out rounds...may the odds be ever in your favor.