Alvarez,+Tiffany

High School Affiliation: Canyon Springs Preparatory Academy (attended and am helping with some coaching) College Affiliation: UNLV Number of Years Judging: going on 2 Number of Years Debating: going on 2 Number of Debates on The Rez: none yet


 * The Kritik-** I wouldnt consider myself an expert on the criticism, but can appreciate it and find it very interesting. I inherently believe that there is room for both "political" and "critical" frameworks in debate, but will default to a policy-maker mindset unless your framework tells me to do otherwise. Please articulate the warrants of the link(s) and, most importantly, what happens in the world of the alternative. Tell me why the alternative overcomes the permutation and tell me why case doesnt outweigh. This should all be done sometime in block, and in more intricate detail (if you go for it) in the 2NR. But seriously, i'm interested :)


 * Performance-** Ive never been exposed to it. Ive only heard the stories. That being said im not sure how i would react, but am guessing that as long as you somehow justify doing or not doing the resolution im down. My only predisposition would mandate that the aff have a plan. If you, however, feel confident in your abilities to justify NOT having one. Dont have one. :)


 * Topicality-** I love it! Run it! The standards i give most weight to are reasonability (on the aff) and predictable limits (on the neg). I'm also greatly persuaded by arguments like "topical version of your aff."


 * Counterplan Theory:** Just justify! Prove why the debate is an example of //unique// abuse! I believe that debate should be and is hard, so if you plan on going for theory you are going to have to spend some serious time on it! And lets face it, conditionality is probably a good thing, whereas multiple conditional pics are just down right dirty.

__Preferences__
 * Slow down and enunciate on all tags, and citations. I appreciate concrete transitions (but dont mandate them or anything) like saying "AND" after each card. And finally dont read your T and/or Theory blocks like you would a card; it is suicidal.
 * Specificity outweighs generic claims kay!? OKAY.
 * Evidence quality matters! Well-reasoned, well-researched evidence over evidence that is "literally on fire" with outlandish claims is obviously best.
 * I will give more weight to analytics that are logical and warranted than most judges.
 * I like CP disad debates :)
 * Good overviews,and holistic impact calculations have high-speaker-points written all over them!
 * Be nice and have fun! (partner on partner rudeness is the most violent of structural violence!!!) :)
 * Dont clip cards