Alvarez,+Vince

Vince Alvarez Assistant Debate Coach @ San Francisco State University

My academic background/interest is in rhetorical criticism, critical/culutral studies with specific interest in postcolonial studies and gender/queer theory.

Topicality - While I would rather not listen to a topicality debate if I don't have to, I do understand and appreciate its importance. I can be persuaded by reasonability arguments. I can also be persuaded that somethings are more important than T, especially if there is a substantive debate going on. I think that T is a question of competing interpretations.

Theory - I would really appreciate not having to adjudicate the debate on a theoretical questions. So often these debates are difficult to flow, hardly progress past the surface objections, and are almost always boring. That being said, their is a place for everything in debate, including theory -- and it is often the only way you can win a debate. So be it. The team advancing the theoretical objections has the larger burden, which means that I would tend to lean negative on counterplan theory etc. Comparing the impacts of specific standards would serve you well, as would reading evidence. The thing about theory for me is that teams only need to win marginal defense to convince me. "Vote against the arg, not the team" is persuasive.

Counterplans - CPs are ok with me, I would prefer a case specific counterplan, than something generic. A net benefit that turns the case is a must. I like CPs to be strategic in value, I am growing fond of these "dirty word" counterplans, and think that they serve a good purpose in debate, somewhere between the process/agent CP and the K. I like it when the counterplan is part of a big picture strategy and not a generic reflex.

Critiques - I like K's. I often ran them as a debater. I like specific K's more than generic. I will vote for the K, and have. I like in depth kritik debate, as opposed to a brief undeveloped K. I think that the K is most vulnerable at the permutation/alternative level. I appreciate alternatives that are nuanced and interact with the affirmative in strategic/innovative ways. If you have a good link/alt explain it in cross-ex instead of evading questions. If you are evasive I am more likely to think that your link/alt is not good.

Performance - This is cool with me. I just ask that you have an argument when doing your performance business. I also think that deferring strategies will have to overcome a high threshold against abuse claims. I am familiar with much of the generic critique literature, but not everything so please do explain. I think that examples and nuance are critical in these debates. There is always a DA to the perm, find it and weigh it against the net-benefit to the alt.

Framework - I like to know what the framework of the debate is, how I should evaluate impacts (and what types of impacts I should evaluate or privilege). If "you gotta have a plan" is all you got, its all you got. I'd prefer that you engage the aff on its own terms or with a competing world view, but if you have to run FW run it with a few caveats: If you can engage the affirmative, do it! Its OK to engage the affirmative AND read FW. I don't think that engaging the affirmative means you have good ground, it means you covering you bases. Always contextualize your generic FW arguments to the affirmative that you are debating. If you have taken the time to talk the affirmative before the debate in order to understand what they do, and then rewrite your FW to be as specific and strategic as possible, it will show. Nothing is more off putting for someone with critical proclivities than a generic FW block.

If I didn't answer your questions, ask me. Every judge has preference. I prefer innovative arguments over generic. I prefer laughing and watching lighthearted debates. It's no hard to make me laugh, at least try. It is my belief that you work too hard as debaters for me to not work just as hard judging you. I could care less about the content of the arguments that you are reading, but I would want the debaters to be civil toward each other, toward me and anyone else observing. As long as you have a claim and a warrant, then you have an argument and it ostensibly has a place in debate in until someone says otherwise.