Carrera,+Luis

Experience: I debated for 4 years of high school policy debate at Science Park High School (Newark Science) and am currently in my fourth year debating at Rutgers-Newark

For the sake of saving scrolling, I will vote on any argument sans if the argument is blatantly offensive (or just plain offensive). I have debated both sides of the "spectrum" of debate so I can vote on policy args. as well as critical args. Throughout my debate career I have leaned towards more critical debate and had affs ranging from critical affs with a plan text (hybrid affs) to affs w/o plan texts, but just like most critique debaters there was a time when I debated a straight-up policy aff with warming and heg advantages so I'm not unfamiliar with traditional affs.

I consider myself more flow-centric but can also vote for the meta-framing of the round if it's framed as an issue that should come before looking at my flow. I'll judge depending on the round and how my ballot and my role as a judge is framed.

Here are some nitpicks/preferences for some args:

Topicality/ Framework:

This debate has become bland and repetitive to me. If this is your strat vs critical/performance/"non-traditional" teams then nuances and specificity will definitely help (tbh that should be the goal for every arg) but in the case of framework I think its important because framework seems generic in most cases. Framing should be important so using impact turns and DAs should be highlighted throughout the round and vice a versa I think the aff should do the same.

DAs/ CPs:

Specific links would help for the DAs debate, the more specific the better. The internal link seems like the weakest part to most DAs so work on that portion of the debate and the impact framing if that is your strat in the 2nr.

CP debates are okay w/ me, a clear solvency mechanism combined w/ a good net-benefit is a viable strat.

K's:

The bulk of my debate career has been critiques so I am familiar with a lot of different args. I am not perfect so there are still critical literature that I have yet to invest my time in like some high theory like Baudrillard, Deluze, etc. but I do have some understanding of what they talk about.

To get an understanding of what I'm invested in high school I used to go for the cap k (different variations) and now my strats usually range from black optimism, black nihilism, and fugitivity.

I like critiques but the weakest part in the K is always the alt; more focus on the alt would definitely be preferable unless you decide not to go for it in the 2nr.

Aff:

Most of my ranting at the top were things the neg should do with the arguments so I'm going to write some things about the aff here. Never forget the aff, I feel like affs have a tendency to try and do what the neg is doing and while those args are definitely arguments you should have, I feel like the aff gets lost in the midst of that. Don't be afraid of going for why the squo is bad and why the aff is needed to make things better.

Try to stop doing what they are doing and just do you. Impact turn, case o/w, and DAs are all offensive arguments that should be in every speech along with the perm and link turns.

The perm debates seem shallow to me most of the time to me, so time spent on that with net-benefits sounds like a better 2ar.

Run arguments that you are comfortable with in front of me and hopefully you'll have some great debates. Sometimes debates are stressful but don't forget to have fun.