Cardenas,+Albert

Coach for South Gate High School in LAMDL'17

I've debated for four years in high school policy debate in the Urban LA Debate League with participation in a few tournaments on the National Circuit and will debate for CUSLB in the coming year.

__**General**__ - If you run a critical affirmative with multiple methods and theories that don't blend well together or create a performative contradiction, then expect to get low speaks. - If neither the aff or neg have any clashing impacts in the round, you're forcing me to vote aff because aff is a 'good idea'. - If you're aff and you read multiple perms against a K and say "extend the perm/s" in the 2AC, expect me to be lost and expect to get owned by the neg. - I'm open to any argument so much as you can defend it and make a persuasive case to me. But really, just do what you best. If you wanna run a policy affirmative with heg good and nuclear war advantages, great! If you wanna run a critical affirmative that argues the topic is anti-black, heteronormative, colonialist, anthropoecentirc, capitalist, etc. All i ask is that it has some relation to the topic. Other than that just have a dun debate! - I'm pretty generous with speaker points, but that doesn't mean you have to earn them. Show up to the round genuinely excited, or feisty. Just PLEASE don't speak in a monotone voice as it makes for a stale debate. - If I feel I have to evaluate a piece of evidence, I'll call for it after a round. - If you have any dank memes, show them to me during prep or after rounds lol - I'm a Latino, and social issues are a thing, but i mean if you happen to say some shit that can be construed as 'offensive' such as racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist language that is apparently violent, i'm not gonna instantly vote you down but you'll probably get whooped by the opposing team and might get gg low speaks lmao.

__**Aff, Case Stuff**__ I believe the case is important, it sets up the debate and ends the debate. That being said, don't ever drop the case or give a speech without extending the impact of the affirmative. If you don't have an impact, then why do i care about voting affirmative? Also, if you have nuclear scenarios in your affirmative, please don't just say nuclear war is going to happen and expect me to consider it as an argument. If you say exactly that, then you have a claim without a warrant. You have evidence, and you need to be able to explain those internal links. As for critical affirmatives, i believe the case should be able to respond to any or at least most off cases the negative presents which is to say it should have built-in answers. For example, if you have an affirmative that discusses anti-blackness within afropessimism, then your case should potentially be able to respond to many offs like FW, T, Cap, Anthro, Settlerism, identity Politics, etc. Just make your case is strategic is all i'm saying.

__**DAs**__ They're cool; the more specific of a link you have the better the round will go for you. Although, I might consider a DA that's obviously generic if the Aff doesn't respond properly. As for politics DA's, you better explain those internal links.

__**CPs**__ These are cool too; I've voted for CPs before and i'll probably vote on it again. But, if you're affirmative and the neg runs some squirrely CP, please run theory and always throw some offense on that shit. Like, i think Consult CPs are bullshit cause it just steals ground but if the Aff lets the neg get away with that, then expect to take a fat L.

__**T**__ Alright, so these arguments I'm not so thrilled about generally because when I see T being ran it's ran with generic blocks that don't actually argue anything but just makes the neg sound like they're whining. So what if the aff is untopical? Why should I care if they explode the limits of the resolution? Why is this key to education? Why does that negatively impact the round? These are things that I hold a high threshold for and these are things that need to be explained in a way that will make me vote for you. But, I'm open to hearing it and considering it if you can run it persuasively.

__**Presumption**__ I LOVE PRESUMPTION ARGS. This is one of my favorite things to argue against any aff. If the aff doesn't do shit to resolve oppression of X group or has some weak ass solvency method, TELL ME THAT'S A REASON TO VOTE THE AFF DOWN.

__**FW**__ I'm down for a FW round. I like seeing a lot of clash between the standards of the neg and the counter standards of the affirmative. So, do some comparison and impact analysis like what fairness means for the neg and what the terminal impact is for them and what fairness means for the affirmative and what the terminal impact might be for them. Compare impacts, weigh them against each other and convince me who has the better interpretation of debate. Also, if you're running FW don't just rely on overwhelming the affirmative with evidence. Remember, quality outweighs quantity and at the end of the round that's what gets my ballot. Take the time to explain your evidence.

UPDATE: Lately I've found myself voting on FW in rounds that are centered on K Affs. I enjoy rounds where the neg contextualizes their impacts to debate and even on an external level, not just regurgitating tag lines without explaining why the aff's unproductive discussion is bad for education in debate. Like okay, the aff broke the rules. Why do I give a shit? MAKE ME CARE ABOUT THE "EXCLUSIONARY,RACIST,SEXIST" but FAIR model of debate that can still be reformed or used for good. FW should wreck every K aff ran, you just have to do the work.

__**K**__ I love these arguments; I strictly became a K debater towards the end of my high school debate career. On the surveillance topic i exclusively ran afropessimism, reading authors such as Wilderson (My Love), Yancy, Hatman, Sexton, Martinot, Farley, etc. so I'm very familiar with antiblackness. That being said, I do hold a high threshold for these debates as it all depends on whether or not you can win the 'blackness is ontological' debate, although I'm guilty of not doing this work in the past. Other than that, go ahead and run other Kritiks in front of me such as Cap, Anthro, Settlerism, Coloniality, Spectrality, Security, University, Moten etc. However, i'm sorry to say i'm not well read in the literature of Baudrillard, Lacan, DnG, Bifo, Bataille, Heidegger or other incantations of high theory. My understanding of these authors are very limited so if you read Baudrillard and you're talking about the seduction of the object or some other, explain it in a coherent manner. I don't care if you're running Bataille and you're trying to be unintelligible lol just please remember I have to understand what you're communicating to me (unless not knowing is a reason to vote you up lol). That also goes for K debaters who know i'm familiar with certain arguments predicated on race. Always explain it to me as if I'm hearing the argument for the first time. A good K debater will find killer links against the case and will use the case against itself to win the round.


 * I personally shift back and forth on args focused on author indictments. For instance, I will agree on race aff or K's criticisms of high theory authors such as Heidegger, DnG, or Nietzsche. However, when I see these arguments deployed, it often sounds like the team that runs them is whining. SO, I will side with these ivory tower authors if you can convince me that even if Nietzsche is white and has never been oppressed, self-overcoming or whatever is probably a good idea and that not doing the aff is life affirming or whatever.y**

__**Performance**__ I love the creativity of these arguments, so if you run these go for it. However, don't just perform for the sake of performing or because 'it's cool'. Always use your performance as a way of turning your opponent's offensive arguments. Tell me how to evaluate the performance in contrast to the neg if you're aff and the aff if you're neg. Also, don't get up in the 2AC and spread at the top of your lungs, "THE NEGATIVE DROPPED THE PERFORMANCE WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE TO VOTE AFF..." it just doesn't appeal to me and it's not a reason to vote for you unless you explain WHY it's a voter and HOW that affects my framing of the round.

If you have any more questions for me that I may have not answered on this page, then you can ask me before the round starts.

For email link chains: albertcardenas17@gmail.com