Rivas,+Jacinda


 * Jacinda Rivas**
 * Whitney Young ‘15**
 * University of Kentucky ‘19**

I strongly believe that you should do what you do best within a debate round whether that be a very far right, very far left or somewhere inbetween. Really do you. Tech>Truth. Smart analytics>Bad Cards. An argument is a claim and a warrant and needs to remain as such.
 * __Top Level__**

You really need to express 2 things along with winning the flow- a. That your vision of debate is good- that means explain what your world looks like and why its better than the squo. b. That is no possible T version of the aff. This is pretty easy when its just like do the plan with the USFG but if it actually probably solves the aff, then this needs a lot of work in front of me.
 * __Kritikal Affs__**

Yes I am versed in some kritik lit like Nietzche and Lacan but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to explain it like I don’t know what it is. That applies to all Kritiks cause if you are just spitting jargon at me and the other team, you aren’t gonna have a good time. I don’t think that you need an alt but if you are going to extend it then it needs a very clear explanation in how it functions. On the other hand you NEED a clearly explained framework and links contextualized in terms of the aff.
 * __Kritiks__**

Competition is the real issue here. I debated near the north shore so I know the struggles of debating those counterplans but I love counterplans that have a clear explanation and a solvency advocate. Solvency advocates for counterplans should have as a level of specificity that matches the aff. I won’t kick Counterplans for you.
 * __Counterplans__**

There is zero risk of a DA same way there is zero risk of an advantage which means that “there is always a risk” framing wont work for me. Which means that you need to do comparative analysis and link/internal link work.
 * __Disads__**

T is great when its well debated. That means that there is good impact analysis and explanation of the standards. I will default to competing interpretations in most debates.
 * __Topicality__**

Condo is probably good but I am pretty willing to vote the other way. Other theory args are harder to win in front of me because they all seem like reasons to reject the argument not the team so you need to very clearly outline why it would be otherwise. These debates need to be clearly explained otherwise you wont get my ballot. Politics theory is not for me.
 * __Theory__**

I have a special place in my heart for impact turns and love to listen to those debates.
 * __Impact Turns__**


 * __Other Stuff__**
 * If you are mean, I will be mean to your speaks. It is not fun for anyone if you are mean so don’t be. The only time I will interfere in the debate is if you are being overly offensive and you will probably get an 18.
 * Clipping cards is not okay. If the other team has evidence that you were clipping or that I know that you are clipping then you will automatically lose and receive 0s
 * Prep ends when you say flashing or the email is being sent.
 * Extra speaks will be given for jokes about Henry Ferolie or funny puns
 * Please don’t call me judge. Its weird. My name is Jacinda. (Ja-sin-da)

Further questions- email me at jacindarivas@gmail.com