Valle,+Luis

Hello! I am Luis and I debated 4 years in high school for Lowell and am currently in my second year at Berkeley.


 * Flashing=/=Prep ** but don’t abuse it. Stealing prep=lower speaks.

Translation: Strike me
 * Nontraditional: ** I strongly believe that the affirmative must **__defend they hypothetical implementation of a topical plan by the United States federal government.__** It will be difficult to convince me otherwise and a mildly competent extension of framework will be sufficient for me to vote against a non-traditional affirmative.


 * Topicality ** : I don’t have any strong feelings here. Specificity of a case-list and exactly what their interpretation allows are appreciated. Reading cards to bolster your impact claims are alright.


 * Theory ** is a reason to reject the argument not the team except in the case of condo, unless I am told otherwise. That’s just a default though and can be easily reversed. Drop initially impacted cheap shots and I’ll vote neg without remorse.


 * Critiques ** are either really good or really bad. The more specific they are, the better and the higher your odds of success. This also means you're going to have to explain more. I read big Ks in high school and pretty familiar with them but if you're reading something less common you might have to do a bit more work.


 * Disadvantages ** are good. Disad/Case debates are my favorite types of debates to watch. Impact calc impact calc impact calc.


 * Counter plan ** debates are fun. Even though cheater counter plans (earmarks, recommendation, xo, etc.) were my bread and butter in high school I really do not enjoy these debates although I understand their strategic benefit. That said, if you find an aff-specific solvency advocate for any of these (i.e. an advocate for something like a reg neg //about the given aff//) I will be very impressed and think you’re pretty shielded from theory if you say it’s grounded in the literature base.


 * Case ** is essential. I do believe in zero risk even within an offense defense paradigm. If the 1ac bioterror impact card is Ochs and the neg reads 3 cards that there is no motive and the 2ac says “extend Ochs, bioterror causes extinction”, //they do not have an advantage//. If the 1nc reads some cards on misallocation/cronyism/etc dooming federal projects and the 2ac extends that their tech is feasible //there is zero risk of solvency// when this is impacted properly. While impact defense is good, internal link/solvency presses are even better.


 * Cross-X ** is underrated. It is binding and it’s a speech. I like aggressive cross-xers and I doubt I’ll think you’re mean unless you cuss them out or something. The only caveat to this rule is if you are conclusively winning/debating novices who should not be in varsity you should be as nice as possible.


 * I don’t call for many cards ** so if their link ev is terrible you need to say that


 * I’ll yell clear three times **, then I stop flowing you and do my own debate work.

-I like to reward hard working debaters and case specific neg strats/hyper-specific link turns showcase this to me a lot more than XO/Ptx -Be clear -Be smart -Compare evidence -A little snarkiness never hurt (and is encouraged) but don’t be mean -Exploit their contradictions! If they read neolib and a trade da concede the trade impact and you only need half as many neolib answers!
 * How to get better speaker points in front of me: **

If you can tell whose wiki I stole +speaks.