Gonzalez,+Gabriela

Recently graduated from CSU, Fullerton as a policy debater. I engaged and debated different types of literature: critical theory (anti-blackness and settler colonialism) and policy oriented arguments during my early years of debate. I am not very particular about any type of argument. I think that in order to have a good debate in front of me you have to engage and understand what the other team is saying. My experience in college debate and working with UDLs has taught me that any argument has the ability to be engaging whether it be traditional plan text arguments, clash of civilization debates, or K on K debates all of them have a pedagogical value. It’s your job as the debater to prove to me why yours is a viable strategy or why your arguments are best. Prove to me why it matters. If you choose to go for framework or the politics DA, then justify that decision. I don’t really care if you go for what you think I like, if anything that would probably annoy me. Just do you.


 * Framework vs. Plan less or vague affirmatives **

As a critical affirmative, please tell me what the affirmative does. What does the affirmative do about its impacts? If you are going for a structural impact, then please tell me how your method will alleviate that either for the world, debate, or something. I don’t want to be left thinking what does that affirmative at the end of the 2ar because I will more likely than not vote negative.

I don’t mind framework as long as you can prove to me why the method that you offer for the debate, world, policy, etc. is justified (CLAIM+WARRANT+IMPACTS) are crucial and an explanation about how you solve or the squo goes a long way. Walk me through why you solve best for the aff or neg impacts. I will not be doing the work for you or any of the internals for you. As long as your argument has a claim, warrant, and evidence that is clear, then what I personally believe is meh. You either win the debate based on the flow or nah. ** Clarity ** If I can't understand what you're saying when you are reading evidence then I'll call out "clear" and after the second time I call out clear I won't flow any evidence that I can't understand. I will also reduce your speaker points. I tend to have facial expressions during rounds. If you catch me squinting, then it is probably because I can’t understand what you are saying. Just slow down if that helps.

Cps needs to have a net benefit…period. I need specific impact scenarios--just hegemony, racism, global warming, and nuclear war does not win the ballot please explain how we get to that point. I really like when a 2AR gives a good explanation of how the aff solves or how the affirmative triggers the impact.
 * DA+ Counter Plans **

Not my strong point, but if you are going for this which I understand the strategic reasoning behind this, then explain the why its bad that X thing and how that should outweigh anything else. Also, slow down during these debates especially on the interpretation.
 * Theory debates**

if you have any questions, ask me before i actually judge you. Ggonzalez0730@gmail.com