Cordoves,+Elizabeth


 * Elizabeth (Eli) Cordoves**
 * Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart '16**
 * Harvard University '20**

I believe debate is an incredibly valuable and life-transforming activity. For this reason, I take every round very seriously – and I think you should, too. This means respect your opponents, and each other. It’s ok to be assertive, but there’s a big difference between being confident and being rude.

In the words of my debate coach, Dana Randall: “I believe debate is a unique academic activity. I believe the merits of switch side debate and the in round clash this activity affords mean that it is usually a greater source of education for students then most of their academic courses. I believe that in order to fully realize the merits of this activity debaters should engage in discussions that stem from the resolution. The affirmative team should have a stable advocacy which defends the direction of the topic. Debaters should disclose previously read positions fully. Teams should place the full citation to arguments they have read on the wiki as soon as is possible. Disclosure enhances pre-round preparation, accessibility, the ability engage an opponent's argument, and raises the standard of what qualifies as evidence.”

I have been a 2N my entire debate career – most of my 2NRs have been the politics DA, a topic DA, process CPs, and topicality. My favorite types of debates to watch are ones where the negative has prepared a specific strategy and is well-versed in the technicalities of the 1AC.

Do not steal prep – this is my ultimate pet peeve and your speaker points will reflect that.

I love these – please run them. As much as I love a smart counterplan in the 2NR along with it, I think the best neg teams can go for the squo and question the 1AC’s logic. For example – why does a collapse of one industry in the US mean the entire economy declines? Why does that mean global nuclear war? Deficits in the 1AC’s internal links are often underutilized by the negative on the case in favor of generic impact defense.
 * DAs:**

Not a fan of politics theory arguments. If the DA's so bad, beat it on substance, not on "the neg dropped intrisicness". Make sure to use your DA to turn the case at the impact and internal link level. This means impact calc is essential.

I will usually default to competing interpretations – which is why I think topicality debates should be framed as two “counterplans” each with respective net-benefits (education, fairness, etc). Saying “depth over breadth” isn’t an argument – one of the hardest parts about going for T (and answering it), is making sure not to only explain the “link” but also implicate this in terms of terminal impacts (What does lack of education mean for debate? Why is that important? What impact outweighs the other, and why?)
 * Topicality:**

These counterplans are usually good: These counterplans are susceptible to theory: I can be convinced either way. I will reward you for specific counterplans that are well-researched and prepared.
 * Counterplans:**
 * PICs
 * Advantage
 * States
 * International Fiat
 * Consult, conditions, recommend
 * Word PICs

Conditionality is the only reason to reject the team (usually) That being said, two conditional options is usually a good limit Theory should be impacted if you’re going for it – buzzwords aren’t enough for me to vote for your argument unless you explain it.
 * Theory:**

I’m not your best judge for these – do not read a K in front of me if your only goal is to confuse the other team and win because of that. I’m not very well-versed in the K lit, but will keep up with topic specific Ks and generics. If you decide to go for the K, please make sure to explain your arguments very clearly to me. This means being very explicit in CX about what the alt does. I will not vote on something if I don’t understand what it means. I am not familiar with "K-tricks", so do not expect me to recognize your argument and vote on it absent a clear explanation. I do not want to judge high theory and philosophy. Links of omission are not links. Floating PIKs are bad. Weighing the aff is good - it is difficult for me to ever believe a framework which holds the affirmative to a perfect standard (in terms of epistemology, representations, etc) is one that is fair. Death is bad - I will not vote for arguments that claim death is good. Fiat is good - obviously voting aff doesn't usually cause change outside the round, but the notion of fiat allows for intellectually stimulating debates about the costs and benefits of public policy. A 2AR that says the aff outweighs and the alt doesn’t solve is very persuasive to me, especially if combined with the permutation. That being said, I am sympathetic to new 1AR/2AR arguments if an argument in the 1NC or block is not developed. For more info, please see the link below.
 * Kritiks:**

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sternberg%2C+Jordana
 * K Affs:**

Good luck, have fun, and debate with heart J feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.  I disagree with a pedagogy that stakes the win or loss on characteristics or experiences of the individual competitors who are seeking a win or those of their opponents.