Lucero,+Adrianna

Debate background: I debated policy for 3 years at La Costa Canyon HS in California, and 1 ½ at Harvard. I have been a lab leader in PF at the Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops and currently coach at the Cambridge Rindge & Latin School.

I have judged only about 10 debates on the space topic. So I am not very familiar with the literature or questions of topicality on this topic.
 * Policy Paradigm 2012-2013**

Policy vs Critical args: I have read both “K affs” (didn’t defend fiat, though did read a plan) and big stick hege affs. I have gone for both Ks and policy strats. I don’t consider myself to have a bias here. However, I will hold teams reading Ks/K affs to a high standard to explain what exactly the alternative/aff advocacy does and what the role of the ballot is. If I don’t know the answer to these questions, you will probably lose. As for framework, I almost certainly won’t agree with you if you argue that Ks/K affs should be excluded from debate entirely. However, I do think teams often get away with murder in what they claim their alt can do, and specific framework interpretations and abuse stories to combat this are welcome.

Theory: I probably err neg on most things besides sketchy CPs—consult, conditions, agent CPs, etc. However I probably end up voting for them more often than not because affs just don’t go for theory or don’t impact their standards concretely enough. Don't be afraid to go for theory!

Speaker points: will be deducted if you are rude. Especially to the other team, but this includes being rude to your partner. I vote for the best //team//, I don’t reward you for treating your partner like a puppet.

Speed: is fine. Being unclear/annoying to listen to because of weird speaking tics you develop because of trying to go too fast – will be penalized. If you’re reading this at NFL Nats, I want to let you know I am very sympathetic if you need to go slower because you’re in front of a split panel. Smart args generally win me over better than lots of cards anyway.

Paperless debate: I’ve been paperless in college. I understand malfunctions happen. However, if you obviously haven’t practiced being efficient at this and waste tons of time in round, I will dock speaker points.

Calling for evidence: I would prefer that you are clear enough that I can write down your warrants in round. If you want me to call for a specific pieceof evidence, you need to make that very clear in your last rebuttal. I will not do your work for you and read everything.

Disclosure: Post-round oral disclosure doesn’t seem to be encouraged at NFL Nats, unless something has changed since I was last there. Personally, I think the advice students get during these discussions is really important and always better than deciphering my terrible handwriting on a ballot. As such, you can always ask me for criticism if you see me in the hall anywhere after the round.


 * PF Paradigm**

One general point, then a couple of random things and pet peeves.

Write my ballot for me in the final focuses please!!!!!! Framework and weighing, I beg of you.....I think I say this before every round and people STILL manage not to clearly state voters.

Me calling for evidence: Very unlikely that I will unless you tell me to in the last speech.

You calling for evidence from the other team: Excessive calls for evidence often seem to serve the sole purpose of wasting the other teams' time. I won't drop you, but I will get irritated.

One theory point: I keep seeing the 2nd team's 2nd speaker not responding to attacks on their case made in the 1st team's Rebuttal, and instead waiting until the 2nd Summary. Waiting until the 6th speech of the round to answer to the other team's first line of responses is really questionable, in my book. I can see a convincing argument that you dropped those answers by not spending at least a little time responding to them in the 2nd Rebuttal. There just isn't time for the first speaking team to respond to your new summary answers in the Final Focus. That being said, since this practice is becoming so common, I will likely flow them through unless the first speaking team points this out and gives me a convincing reason why this practice isn't okay. tl;dr: if it wasn't in your partner's speech preceding the one you're giving now, I think you're being shady.


 * LD Paradigm**

I have never competed in LD, only judged it. Just be aware that my area of expertise is Policy. I am familiar with the value / value criterion structure, but PLEASE be sure to be explicit about deeper nuances of how these framework arguments play out if there is any possibility my lack of background might hinder me in understanding.

This is particularly true for theory debates. Theory is probably not the best strategy in front of me, because the likelihood that I will be unfamiliar with the jargon you use is very high. If you want to go for these arguments, you should be very clear about explaining concepts or issues that are only found in LD, and probably would do well to slow down in doing so so I have time to write everything down.

As with every type of debate, it comes down to weighing and framework -- why I should prefer your role of the ballot, and your V or VC, and then how within that framework, that means that your arguments win.

Additionally - if you are debating someone with less experience, or who is unfamiliar with the types of "nontraditional" arguments now being made in LD, the best way to get good speaks from me is to make the round __more__ accessible to each side, rather than trying to win based on arguments the other side has clearly never heard before (e.g. theory).