Valdez,+Rosie

I am the Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School. I debated for four years at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet and previously coached at Rogers Heritage High School. If you have any questions, contact me at __rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com__ .

Do what you do and do it well. Spending too much time tailoring your arguments to my preferences ceases to be you debating at your best.I enjoy engaging debates that make me think for a good reason, not because I have to do too much work to write a ballot one way or the other. Be clear, be concise, be economical. If your style is narrative heavy, I’m down. If you are super tech-y, I like that too. Read a plan, don’t read a plan, read poetry, play music, be hella policy, be hella anti-policy—do you.
 * Meta **

I care about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of shitty, under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make. I rarely call for evidence; calling for evidence typically means that debaters are not doing enough comparative analysis in round and thus dangerously increases the likelihood that I will intervene. That said, if I call for your evidence, don’t panic. This is not universal.
 * Evidence/Argumentation **

I was a K debater in high school. I coach K teams. This means that Ks are my wheelhouse. This does not mean that I have some sort of automaticity for voting for the K every time, or that you should make assumptions about what I like/dislike based on your perception of me. It also does not mean that I know every author/lit base/nuance of particular arguments. I find that negatives often lose critical debates when they do not demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a negative ballot. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is really important. Conversely, affirmatives typically lose K debates because there is little press on what an alternative does, and little analysis of perm functions. A criticism should not be used to avoid topic-specific education. I will not vote for a team that expects me to construct this kind of argumentation for them—don’t make me sit and create links for you. Perhaps snide, but important nonetheless: if you can’t pronounce authors or struggle to pronounce/articulate key ideological terms/concepts, don’t waste your time here.
 * Ks **

I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in the debate space” is //not// the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” A less compelling framework debate is one that attempts to establish “rules” or “standards” for debate. I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team. Unless you specify (and I am convinced) otherwise, my ballot is an endorsement of an advocacy.
 * Framing/Theory **

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I can enjoy a good T debate, but I find most T debates very shallow, so I caution that the negative will have to meet a pretty high threshold to win a round on this argument. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.
 * Topicality **

**Disadvantages/Counterplan**s No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration if you’re going to run them in front of me. Specifics: **I don’t want to hear your Consult CP, you can have a coke.** Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in the debate space” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” A less compelling framework debate is one that attempts to establish “rules” or “standards” for debate. I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team. Unless you specify (and I am convinced) otherwise, my ballot is an endorsement of an advocacy.
 * Framing/Theory **