Dela+Cruz,+Liz

Name: Liz Dela Cruz Contact Info: lizdelacruz@me.com

**Affiliation:** SouthWestern College, Weber State University

**__Paperless Ish: Flashing is Preferred__**: Prep time ends when you hit "save on the USB". Flashing is not considered part of prep time. If you take more than two minutes to save on the USB and get files flashed over, I will ask that you "run prep time". If you are going to do an email chain and would like to put me on it feel free. My email is listed above. **If teams have spandies and tubs and USE 60% or more paper in a debate, will get some sort of candy or asian yummyness!**

**__Experience__**: I was a policy debater for SouthWestern College. We run socialism and sometimes not socialism but more often than not it’ll be socialism. Did I mention we run socialism?

**__Voting Style:__** Do what you want but make sure it’s on my flow. Be clear and concise and tell me how I should interpret the round. Don’t make the assumption that I’ll randomly agree with your arguments. Spell it out for me so that there is 100% chance I get it. Spend time on the overview or underview. Make it very clear where I should be voting and why. This is something that makes my life easy and the life of all judges easy. Paint me a picture using your arguments. Give me reasons why I should prefer your position over theirs. The clearer the debate is the easier it will be to vote for you. Heck clear up the debate if it gets messy you’ll get nice speaker points. See how I’m telling you all to do the work? That’s because the debaters not the judge should be deciding how the judge should judge. I’m an open canvas. Paint me a nice picture. Just no nemo.

**__Speed and flowing:__** There’s fast and then there’s fast. As much as I’d like to admit I can keep up with a giant card dump in the neg block with a billion arguments, it’s just not going to happen. I can keep up with most speed reading. It’ll be easier for me to get your arguments down on my flow if you slow down during the tag/citation so I can actually hear it super well. If you spread your tags and I’m not keeping up, that’s on you as a debater. Arguing when you lose because I didn’t have that card or arg flowed when you made it a blippy mess isn’t going to do anything so don’t even try. That being said, I keep a very concise flow. And what you say in the 2nr and 2ar will be what I vote on.

**__Policy Argument Issues:__**

**Case**: I feel like sometimes case debates get overlooked a lot. If you’re aff, don’t be afraid to use your case as giant offense if the other team is only to go 1 or so off. Good cases can swill outweigh da’s and K impacts if done well.

**Non-Traditional Affs** I evaluate Non-traditional Affs the same as traditional ones. However, there are things I like clearly defined and explained: 1. Explanation of advocacy 2. Role of the Ballot 3. Role of the Judge 4. Why is your message/mission/goal important.

**Topicality** I don't really care to much for T, but I will vote on it. I haven't voted yet on T being a reverse voting issue, but I do believe that T is a voting issue. I also tend to lean towards competing interpretations versus reasonability. Although, if the argument and work is there for reasonability, I will vote on it. Especially if the other team does not do the work that is needed on Topicality.

**Theory** Just saying things like "reject the team" or "vote Aff/Neg" typically doesn't do it for me. I would much rather hear, "reject their argument because it … blah blah blah." On the other side, saying "reject the argument not the team" is not enough for me to not consider it. I need solid reasons to reject the team like abuse. Actual abuse in round based on what was run is very convincing.

**Performance** I like watching performances. Since I judge by my flow, it allows me to separate myself from how I evaluate the round. Please note: Just because I am expressive during the debate does not always mean that I am leaning to your side. I am a very expressive person and thus why I judge strictly by my flow. So if there are points that you want me to highlight, pull them out in the later speeches. It will help with clarification and clash.

**Kritiks** I like kritiks. That being said a lot of mumbo jumbo gets thrown around a K debate. If you want me to pull the trigger on the K I need to know how it functions. Explain the rhetoric of your K to me in the block. Don’t assume I know what your alt is and what it will do in conjunction to the aff. That’s your job to make sure I know. Explain what your alt is and how it solves not only the impacts you read but also the aff’s or why the aff’s impacts don’t matter. Don’t assume that I’ll vote for “reject the ***” alts. Spend time in the block and in the 2nr how your K works in the round. Give me a picture of what the world of the K looks like and what the world of the aff looks like.**

Not all disads are created equal. The Aff should attack all parts of the DA. Impact calculus is a must.
 * DA**

I believe that CPs should compete with the 1AC. Not only does this give better clash, but it also allow the 2A to defend their Aff.
 * CP**

I have only started judging LD just recently. With that being said, I am confident that I can clearly evaluate the round. With a policy background, I judge only my flow and do not believe in intervention. It is the debaters that should do the argument work.
 * __LD__**
 * Overview**

I'm a policy debater, so speaking fast is not an issue. However, make sure that you are clear. If I don't understand you, then I can not flow it. If you are going through analytics, make sure that you are clear about which ones you are talking about. Also take time to be clear regarding your authors names and arguments. This will help lots.
 * Speaking**

FW can be a voting issue for me if your analytics are sound and there is offense. If you put a framework, make sure that you stick to it. Don't just say here is the FW and not discuss the types of impacts or how to weigh the impacts.
 * Framework (FW)**

I will only vote of votes if it holds substance and weight in the round. Just saying that one outweighs the other is not enough. Give me the why I should vote. Impact calculus is important.
 * Voters**

I am not partial to one or another when it comes to LD. Just make sure that they are complete and is labeled accordingly. **It is important to signpost and label things because I have a policy back round and that is how I flow. By working around this will not only help in my feedback, but also helps in making my decisions. Also, explain you argument, make sure it is warranted and justified. If something is important for me to consider, spend time on it and tell me why.** Explaining how the argument fits into the debate space is key, especially when running offensive arguments.
 * Arguments**

If you are going to read a K, make sure that you explain what it mean. This is not just for me, this is for everyone in the room. Making sure that everyone understands the argument is important. Also, take a second to explain why this fits into the debate and how it is important.
 * K**

When it comes to LD, it is important to tell me why and how someone is or is not doing something. Just telling me what is not how to get my vote. When it comes to LD debaters, I find that this can often be the downfall. If you are going to run this argument, make sure that it is simple, definitive and descriptive. If not explained right, this can be a hard sell. So be aware.
 * T/Theory**

Card extensions without reasoning is not considered an extension. You must pull out the warrants in your cards and explain how it fits in the debate round. Below is two ways to extend: 1. say "extend" date, author, reasoning, how it pertains to debate 2. say "extend" author, date, from location on flow, reasoning
 * Extensions****