Rivera,+Alex

CX De**bae**t

I generally think that Policy Debate is an educational activitie before anything else. For that reason, I have a slight disposition towards well run Kritiks, theory and specific DA/CPs.

I like speed, but that isn't an excuse to card spam without analysis. Work smarter not harder. I do enjoy a tone and slight speed change during tags. Thanks!

Humor is awesome. I need it. I also really do like snark, not gonna lie, as long as it is not blatantly malicious.

K

When a kritik is run with good link analysis and alternative explanation is is extremely persuading to me. However, I WILL NOT VOTE ON LINKS OF OMISSION. If your link ground looks sketchy, I generally will not vote on it.

I prefer Kritiks that are more nuanced to the topic, but will vote on most others. Some favorites are Nietzche, Baudrillard, Biopower, Security, State and others. Although my experience is not as heavy with Queer theory, Race, and Feminism, they are lovingly accepted into the round, as long as you are willing to exercise your communication skills with me by spending more analysis time.

CP

I love all counterplans, but am sympathetic with theoretical disputes of PICs, Consults, Agent CPs, etc. Don't feel discouraged though. Run the CP, just answer the theory. I do not consider them an issue of dropping the team, only the argument.

Theory

I personally think competing interps is the better model for debate, but will default to reasonability if given a little push.

I will vote on proven and potential abuse. If they are fleshed out, I will vote on the worst arguments you could possibly think of.

Offense/Defense

I'll pull the trigger on presumption, but prefer offense on the case.

Any questions just ask! I debated 4 years in Kansas policy debate and am now a debater at Western Kentucky University.