Rodriguez,+Michelle

I am currently a policy debater with the Cal State Fullerton debate team. I was a SCUDL debater through out all four years of high school and I also have experience as parliamentary and public forum debater. I am familiar with critical arguments and am comfortable hearing theses arguments. That being said that does not mean that I will not vote on traditional arguments. When I say critical arguments I am referring to Kritics and critical affirmatives. K. I enjoy a good, clean, clear K debate. I understand that some of the K literature can be a little bit dense and hard to understand at times so I think that it is important that you can articulate what your K is and have a clear link debate. Again the same goes for a critical affirmative. Theory. Theory is an important thing for both the aff and the neg. If you are a critical affirmative you should be ready for this debate and you should flesh it out in the 1AC. For the Neg it should come out in the 1NC and that you impact it properly. When it comes to more traditional arguments I am open to them but that being said that does mean that there are some arguments that I am critical of. Topicality. Topicality is not necessary an argument that you will win unless you go for it in the end(that means going all in on it for the bulk of the 2NR, all 5 minutes and fully explaining all the standards, violation and voters and not just extending them). I tend to give the aff some leeway if they can prove that they are reasonably topical. I believe that you should run topicality more sparingly and only in cases where the aff is blatantly untopical, in the case where the abuse story is strong I will vote for topicality but again I must stress that it has to be run really well, clear and cleanly. ASECP. ASPEC is another argument that I would advise to run only when it is warranted especially at the point that it seems that this question can be answered during the first cross-x. You especially lose credibility at the point that you don't even ask during cross-x. When that happens it makes it really hard to justify a neg ballot and its easier to be more sympathetic to the aff. DA's/CP's I am not opposed to these arguments and I do vote for these arguments as long as they are run and extended properly. That does not mean that you can just say extend such and such evidence by such author, you need to explain your argument thoroughly. Overall there are a couple things that you need to abstain from doing in front of me. One of them being although I am fine with speed there is something to be said about clarity, just because you are speaking at a fast pace does not mean that you are being clear. If you are not being clear I will say clear. Second you have to make sure that you are also clear when it comes to the line by line debate I know that it can get a bit messy but at the very least make sure that you sign post.