Lopez,+Leandra

Leandra Lopez Director of Debate at Ransom Everglades School in Miami, FL Debated at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart (4 years) and then in college at the University of Miami (3 years) and University of Mary Washington (1 year)

The affirmative should read and defend a topical plan that is an example of the current resolution. Advantages should stem from the theoretical passage of that plan. Critical affirmatives with a plan text are fine.

Truth > tech. There is nothing more persuasive than the truth. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, there still has to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with.

Topicality and conditionality are reasons to reject the team. Other theory arguments are typically reasons to reject the argument. The negative should not read more than two conditional positions, and I can be persuaded that even that is too much.

Critiques should link to the plan, as opposed to the advantages. Alternatives typically have serious competition problems and solvency deficits. The more the negative does to deal with these issues, the better

If the 2NR goes for a CP or a critique, I assume the status quo is NOT an option unless the 2NR specifies otherwise.

Evidence quality over quantity.

Flow.

It is an uphill battle to persuade me of the following- -Debate is bad. -Minorities are incapable of/do not want to do traditional policy debate. This is always an odd one for me because then I have to wonder if I was in an alternate universe those 8 years I debated. Seriously, this argument will offend me and speaker points will reflect. -Death is good. -Pragmatism is bad. -Socialism/Communism is good. No.

Please be respectful – of your opponents, your partner, the judge, the classroom.

If you have questions, feel free to ask.