De+Castro,+Lyra

Years of Experience: 4 Years in High School School affiliated with: Brooklyn Technical High School

Rounds Judged on this topic: About 20

I think that debaters should run whatever they want, that being said just because I was a predominantly a Kritik debater doesn't mean that I'll vote for you on it. I strongly believe that debaters should run, for the most part literature that they are familiar with; know what you're talking about. I do like things to be explained within the round, so don't just drop buzz words in front of me, it doesn't count if you don't at least once explain it to me. Yeah, you can probably assume that on certain literature bases I know what you're talking about but that is absolutely not an excuse to NOT explain. I think that debate is primarily an activity about persuasion, so I want you to convince me, talk to me as if I know as much as a lay person on this topi: trust me, it's a useful skill.

=__The Arguments__=

**Theory/Topicality**

 * I am a firm believer that these are gateway issues, which means that these are the first things I will always look at in the round. ANSWER THEM.
 * I'm willing to pull the trigger on potential abuse especially in terms of topicality, just because a particular team is ready for your aff doesn't mean anything to me.
 * Debate the Standards. I think this is as important if not more important than the interpretation debate, which usually ends up as a wash anyway.
 * Give and explain voters.
 * Give an abuse story.
 * It doesn't matter to me if there is in round abuse if no voters or standards are given as far as I if those aren't being extended then all I have is the definition of a word.

=Case=
 * I'm a big fan of the case debate. I think people under-utilize the 1AC and should be extending those cards everywhere.
 * I prefer a good succinct 1AC to a 50 page behemoth whose cards lack warrants and have just useless cards.
 * If the neg can find contradictions within the cards in the 1AC I will think that they are saints and give super speaks
 * If the aff doesn't defend or extend solvency, they lose.
 * If I can't remember the gist of the plan text, then the aff isn't being persuasive enough and should lose.

=Disadvantages=
 * You better have a damn good internal link story.
 * Slow down on the politics scenarios. Seriously, they're like 3 cards that are all a total of 5 seconds long, I can't get all of that done.
 * There has to be a comparative impact scenario.
 * You gotta have specific links. I'm serious, I don't want to hear the same DA five times, against five different affs and the debate on the neg sounds all the same. I get bored.
 * Whoever controls inherency/uniqueness controls the direction of the DA

=Counterplans=
 * I like them but they have to be functionally and textually competitive.
 * No, the Permutation is not offensive, you don't magically get to steal the CP
 * Debate CP theory I think it's amusing
 * The Perm will always be a test of competition.
 * Be outrageous but researched
 * Have solvency evidence.

=Kritiks= =Framework=
 * My personal favorite as a debater.
 * Know the literature and be able to explain it well or don't run the Kritik.
 * I'm really nit picky about Race and Cap debaters. I'll know if you're lying
 * Go crazy but don't do anything without reason. Purpose is important.
 * I'll be whoever you tell me, otherwise I default to not role-playing.
 * Have competitive interpretations, standards and voters.
 * Take the time to make me understand.
 * Just because you win FW doesn't mean you win the round

=Cross-ex=
 * Go ahead be snarky, but give it purpose.
 * Be heated, it keeps me awak
 * Be very respectful
 * Be strategic, I love strategic Cross Ex.

Lastly, do what you want. Have fun and don't take debate seriously, after all it's really just a game. = = If you have any questions please feel free to contact me via e-mail at: ldecastro94@gmail.com