Morales,+Bianca

Senior debater at Weber State University

FWK-

I am neutral to this argument and think that the negative can win reasons as to why the process of the AFF is problematic and causes a trade off with viable neg ground. Don’t waste time on portable skills as I don’t think that is an impact that the aff negates. You need to do leverage fwk as more of a counterplan that not only solves the aff but has many net benefits that their advocacy trades off with.

Think about your topical version-it will be obvious that you just slapped together if you have not thought about how the topical version resolves the 1ac impacts in a way that fits your interpretation.

AFF-Don't think that means I won't default to fwk-I think that the 1ac is always already offensive to this argument so you should really leverage the aff against alot of the internal link claims to fwk. If you read 40 DA's on fwkthere is probably a risk that they aren't well warranted so you should focus on your best offense and prioritize this as reasons to why your affirmation is the best scholarship. Spend time expaining to me why your interpretation is net preferable and an accessible ground for both the aff and negative. But just don't under cover because I will pull the plug on fwk.

Topicality-if this is a time skew that doesn't have potential for being competitive against the aff then don't waste your time. I vote on T, I think that it is a neccessary procedural that sets the precedent for the aff, but similiar to FWK-it needs to be clear the neg ground that you lose. I love when evidence is clashed on T and why evidence on questions of scholarship on definitions matter. I think that the AFF needs to have a C/I that is reasonable that does not kill the ground of the negative and have a staunch defense of reasonablility then I think that you do your job.

DA's

I don't encounter them as much as my ideological approach to the resolution is to more critical. That being said I do think that DA debates are valuable discussions. I LOVE T/Off DA's because it forces the AFF to think about the opportunity costs of the aff and how far it can solve external forces that implicate its solvency. I am more focused on the I/L and impact debate then the link debate. This does not mean that I don't evaluate this portion but that my argumentative bias lies in the world where the direction of the DA is true or false. Impact comparsion is very importatnt to me because I want to know why I should care about the prospect of Nuclear War over Global Warming or Structural Violence. Spend TIME on this because it shapes how I evaluate the round at the end of the debate. If you are winning the heck out of the link of DA but are lack luster on impact level there is a chance that you lose because I don't think that your impact was prioritized.

CP-

Read the CP text slowly-I need to know what the CP is and how it competes with the AFF. I LOVE internal net benefits because it means that the CP is stand alone with out a net benefit like the politics DA (which I am not entirely a fan of but if you win on the I/L and Impact level I have to vote for you). Make the difference in mechanism between the aff and the CP clear because it helps me understand why your advocacy should be perfered over the AFF. EXPLAIN THE MECHANISM of THE CP!!!!

AFF-If you are going for the perm you need to sit on this argument for a bit because I need to know why the mutual exclusitivity of your arguments is not that strong. So I think that you need to spend time explaining why the AFF comes first or is the internal link between the CP and the AFF or that the AFF neccesiitates portions of the CP.

Kritiks-

I am more versed in this part of debate because it is where I garner most of my competition. I don't think that you should assume that I know the lit that you are talking about so the LINK needs to be explained to me so that I know what the aff has done that is bad, distracts, tradeoffs to the criticism. If this is a more straight up AFF then I think that your fwk arguments can be integrated in how you answer permutations because you always already should make arguments why your epistemology comes first or why the negative's epistemology should not come first. I find these debates stimulating because it is the framing for the round that I as a judge have to evaluate with the link stories with both the AFF and the NEG. If the AFF is more critical, I find that these debates get a bit more sloppy because everyone is showing off their big words and nebulous extrapulations of whatever it is that you are saying. HOLD the LINE and explain the link story to me on both sides. I am more flogo centric in these debates because the nature of these debates tends to get messy and I need to hold the line somewhere.

I can be persuaded either way as to whether or not critical affs get a permutation, look at my theory portion to see how I evaluate these questions.

High theory-don't assume I get it, I am probably not the best judge for these debates.

I hate shallow extensions of the ALT-you need to win that it solves so there needs to be a developed explanation of how it resolves the aff or does something productive.

Speed-

I am fine with moderate speed, but I think clarity and slowing down on tags will be your best friend in these debates so that I can clearly get the warrants and hear all the best work you have put into being competitive at this tournament.