Del+Curto,+Kelly

Kelly Del Curto School Affiliation: St. Vincent High School Debate Experience: 4 years Current Sophomore at UC Berkeley

I will vote for anything as long as its a good argument and debated well. Debate what you know best.

Topicality - I tend to have aff bias when it comes to topicality but will definitely vote for a negative team that debates it well. I need clear explanations of the violation and in-depth impact calculus. Shadow extending or being blippy on T will probably not be a winning strategy in front of me.

Theory - I like theory debates when they are in-depth and specific in round abuse is articulated. I tend to think vague alternatives and conditional affirmatives are bad. Everything else is fair game.

DA and CPs - I like them. I think Counterplans are extra persuasive with solvency advocates, but that is not entirely necessary for you to win.

The K - I mainly ran critical arguments in high school and feel comfortable voting for them now. Yet I think that too often debaters run critiques they don't fully understand or have not cut themselves. In my opinion a persuasive K debate involves specific links, good articulation of what the world of the alternative looks like and how the impacts of the critique compare to the impacts of the affirmative. I want to hear the big picture at some point! I will sympathize with an affirmative that pokes holes in a vague critical strategy. I will default to a policy making framework if no other framework is provided.

I think debate should be a fun, educational and an enjoyable experience for everyone - so be nice to each other, please.

Any specific questions - feel free to ask me.

Note: If you choose to debate with electronic files, please transfer your evidence by the end of your speech (your partner can do it while your talking). We'll use your preptime otherwise to transfer evidence, so as not to waste time.