Alvarez,+Diana

Diana Alvarez // Debated for Stern MASS in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Urban Debate League for 4 years, qualified to the Urban Debate National Championship twice - ended in a sems run, top 12th/5th speaker, and some more... //

-Tech and Truth? -Speed is fine but please be clear. -Do what you do best. I am open to Affs/K’s that I may not be well-versed on but it is your job to articulate the argument(s) - “the best debaters do not win by confusing their opponents” - I also need to know what I am voting for. -Debate is a game and you should aim to win. You do not enter a round knowing exactly what you will go for but rather make decisions on what occurs within the room.
 * __General:__ **


 * __*Don’t be racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic or argue these are good in ANY way, I will not vote for you.__ **

-Simply because the other team did not say the phrase “Role of the Ballot” does not mean that they dropped the framing question - some debaters may phrase this differently. Whoever controls the framing of the debate will win my ballot.

-Theory: Condo - will vote for but need impacts to these, I prefer an articulation of why having multiple contradictory off cases forces the aff to debate themselves rather than “x amount of off case is cool.”
 * __Specifics:__ **

//__Policy__// - tell me what the plan does and extend solvency accordingly. I prefer arguments, do not just read 30 cards and not explain what they mean.
 * __Aff:__ **

__//K Affs//__ - I read them most of the time in high school however, I will not vote for you ONLY because I love K affs. You need to have an advocacy that articulates what the aff does and be able to defend it entirely. For instance you have to defend why the aff precedes a full endorsement of the topic.

//__Framework vs. K Affs__// - I will vote on framework but I encourage you to not only read alone. At least try to engage the aff and if you are unable to do so, this will make your fw arguments more persuasive rather than simply resorting to only framework.

Please do not just read your generic 8 minute block in the 2NC without engaging the specifics of the aff that make it impossible to be neg- provide instances where the aff has proved this. This goes with any off, speaker points will be awarded generously.

-The role of the neg is to disprove the aff. -Case debates are often undermined and should not be. I like case arguments that make the aff question their solvency.
 * __Neg:__ **

//__-CPs/PICs:__// If they aren't kicking aff on theory - go for them! Otherwise, can be considered cheating.

//__-DA’s:__// Need strong internal links, impact extension, specifics are awesome!

__//-Kritiks://__ Love them! You need a good link, the more explicit it is the better! You do not need to have the best link if you can use instances in which the aff links. Know the literature you are reading.

//__Topicality__// is not my fave but slow down when you read shells. I will vote on it if the aff mishandles it but do not reach.

Questions? Email me: d.alvarez028@gmail.com