Herrera,+Lenny

Affiliation: Binghamton University 2016' Debate History: 3 years in High School @ The Bronx School for Law Government and Justice 2 years @ Towson University AND now debate @ Binghamton University I've only done critical debate. I learned how to debate using a 1NC file that was based on Foucault's theory of 'biopower'. I now only do 'performance' debate. I don't read plans or advocacy texts very often but I have in the past. I've judged high school 'policy' debates and enjoyed them. In my own debates I'm flow-centric, and enjoy a good line-by-line debate. I'm well versed in a variety of literature bases: Afro-pessism, Afro-futurism, LatCrit, De-colonial Theory, Deleuze, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Baudrillard etc. I like the Ninja Turtles and my favorite book is the "Brief and Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao" by Junot Diaz. Make the debate enjoyable.
 * About Me:**

The 'winner' of the debate is the team who does the best debating (that means tell me why you should win the debate by the end of it). Too often I'm left with two teams that do not extend impacts, roll of the ballots, or reasons to vote AFF/NEG. I like when teams talk to me. I don't particularly like paperless debate cause I feel like debaters are talking to their computer, I know its hard but try to do that less. I value persuasion. A dropped argument isn't always a true argument. If the AFF/NEG is winning a larger framing issue and it outweighs said 'dropped' argument', I will prefer that larger framing question to the unwarranted 'dropped' argument. On the other hand, if you make the dropped argument a larger framing issue that changes or 'spins' the direction of the debate (and do it well/it makes sense) that's honorable and enjoyable to watch.
 * Overview:**

//I know most of you//. If your AFF has nothing to do with the topic, i'll be upset but I'll get over it (I think you should try to at least connect it to the topic. do it. it's not hard). I am going to hold you to a high warrant-explanation threshold. Simply saying the 1AC is ''White-Supremist', 'Eurocentric', 'Anti-Black', is not sufficient of a warrant for me to vote you up (unless they don't answer it). You need to explain to me what exactly about the other teams plan/thought/ideology perpetuates these impacts. Anti-Blackness/Racism/White Supremacy is an impact if you tell me it is (some people forget to say it's an impact) but you'll most likely have to defend why I should prefer it to extinction. That said, I will almost always vote for structural racism outweighs nuclear war/extinction with a good explanation as to why that is so. If you are NEG extend an alternative in the 2NR and explain it throughly.
 * Performance/Resistance:**

It's about competing interpretations of the debate. However: You could have prepared. You could have researched the AFF. You could have asked the other team about their 1AC. But read framework I don't mind. I've debated teams in college that do it really well so if you do it well, good for you (I guess). If you don't PLEASE try something else. I've heard everything on framework. And I'm more willing to vote on framework when you make it about the resolution AKA why debating the resolution is inherently good/productive/good for policy and solving some existential crisis. Or that the 1AC should have been 'resolutional' ' topical' because a dialogue that allows for __clash__ prevents some crisis, creates a better debate space, or solves the impacts of the AFF better (racism, sexism, patriarchy, etc).
 * Framework:**
 * Fairness, Predictability as IMPACTS** I don't really get. **DEPORTATION** is unfair.
 * Clash, Decision-making, Portable Skills, Technocratic-Language Good, Policy-Making Key** are better arguments to go for in front of me.

You want me in the back of these debates. Mostly because I want to tell you how most of the stuff you are saying/articulating has some racial prejudices/issues surrounding it. For example: If you tell me I exist in the hyper-real. I'll enjoy it. But then I'll let you know that my Latin@'s crossing the border exist in no such thing. And there is a thing called epistemic privilege that you should read about. Knowing this will teach you how to beat race teams with your postmodern philosophers. OR if you talking about Heidegger and ontology, My RFD will probably tell you to go read Maldonado-Toress' //The Topology of Being and the Geopolitics of Knowledge: Modernity, Empire, Coloniality//. I evaluate these debate based on impact calculus. But if you tell me the 1AC is key to creating an innovative reform to subject-hood or conceptions of otherness that's cool too.
 * Kritiks:**

You are going to have to adapt to me. I like case debate, DA's, CP's. The debate will come down to your warrant analysis almost always. Use less debate jargon in these debates. If you read a whole bunch of cards without explaining them...I'll be pissed.
 * Policy:**


 * Reminder:** I'm here to be persuaded. If you are going to make an argument about the debate space tell me what debate looks like post-signing the ballot. Don't ever say 'racism will never go away' or 'obama solves racism'. And just cause I'm brown doesn't mean I want you to change your AFF and start reading something about race. I know it's strategic, but nothing annoys me more than this. When I know //you// don't know what you are talking about but you make me sit there and listen to you anyway. Lastly your ethos wins you debates more than you would think.