Gutierrez,+Lesly

Lesly Gutierrez

If you have questions about the round email me @ leslygutierrez2011@gmail.com, but please put the round in the subject line I am gonna move this to the top of the flow. I am hard of hearing. Stop mumbling. I literally cannot hear your args if you don't project/speak to the floor/your laptop is in front of your face.

__The Plain and Simple:__ I’m as much of a blank slate as I possibly be can. The debate is what you make it and what you think is your best argument and what you feel like going for. There’s no arguments that will be an automatic loss if you go for them, that being said, if your 2nr is going to be timecube I would find someone else to pref. I’m in my 6th year of doing debate, 4 on the national circuit in high school, 2 in college. Please stop asking my why I'm qualified to judge your round. I am, tab gave me a ballot.

__Aff Questions__


 * K affs/Project Teams**- I like these debates. I think they produce a lot more portable debate knowledge than big stick policy affs. I've read a lot of Latinx/Fem lit, so I feel like I have a good backing in it.

__Neg Positions__


 * T**- I think T is an underrated strat that should be gone for more. By that, I mean that if you have some specific T shell or the aff is blatantly not the res, then go for T. I don't think this hiding of the effects t bad is a round winner. I default reasonability if you don't say competing interps.

DA- Specific link, specific link, specific link. I'll say it again. Have a specific link. Your generic surveillance links don't have much weight with me. I'm not going to vote against you for reading a generic link but I prefer specificity over generics/


 * CP**- I think counterplan debates are a lost art, and these are debates I enjoy but you have to be smart in how you write the counterplan text. Your generic XO CP from 2008 is cool, but it needs to reflect the topic area.


 * Theory-** I have a hard time believing that 2 K’s are abusive in a world where they are conditional, and the neg just needs some justification on why they get to test the aff. Other theory arguments just need to be well explained.


 * Kritiks**- This is the fun part. I like the K. I read the K quite often. I like to judge a well-explained K debate. I will listen to your Spanos, D&G, or whatever. It needs to be well explained. I repeat this because it’s important. I haven’t read every K in the world, which means I might not know what you are reading. I just need you to tell me what the alt does and why the aff is bad. Please don’t make the debate buzz words. I don’t care about rhizomatic structures of the aff, tell me why those structures are bad and what the ballot can do to change them.


 * Framework-** If you read it against a K aff, have an answer to “Framework is racist:” I'm not really persuaded by have to role play as the USFG but if that's the strat you're going with just make sure you dedicate some time there.


 * Weird Stuff:** I'm not a fan of these trolling args, and will probably dock speaks if you read them. Calling shotgun for the ballot, adding words to the 1AC, timecube, consult x-men, etc. are not arguments. They are time sucks that get mirrored by other teams and makes debate terrible. I'd rather you read something generic than waste my time.

__Speaker Points:__

I’m not a points hack. I’ll say clear and then I stop flowing. I'm hard of hearing which means you should speak up and make eye contact every so often to see if I'm flowing. I'll say louder once and then i'll stop flowing. Be accommodating. How you conduct yourself in CX is important. If you're rude and needlessly hurtful to your opponents, I’ll dock speaks.There is a difference in confidence and rudeness. Be clear, be courteous and your speaks will reflect that.