Espejo,+Natalia

Experience: I debated in North Dakota (don't strike me:)), from 1997-2003, and now coach at Eagan, HS where I have been working with some regularity since 2005.

Paradigm: I default policymaker, which means that I'll weigh the case against the SQ and vote accordingly, UNLESS I'm effectively told to do differently.

Preferences

Theory: It's not that I don't like theory, but it has been an incredibly long time since I saw a decent theory debate. If you want to go for it in front of me, you have to get off your blocks, and actually give the arguments in-round impacts. If I'm forced to compare a block-war, chances are I'll defer negative on most affirmative theory arguments.

Counterplans: They should be competitive (which can be exclusively through net benefits), and ideally solve back some of case (Affirmatives please please do a better job of explaining solvency deficits). Nevertheless, if the net-benefit is sufficiently explained, and the text is thoughtfully written I am more often than not, a fan.

Kritiks: I like them, but only if the alternative is well-explained, or if I'm given a compelling reason to believe that the links might uniquely turn case in some way. Absent either of these two arguments, I have a really hard time voting on critical arguments. Also, to be precise, when I write that I need alternatives to be explained, this means that negatives should go beyond telling me to "reject the affirmative" and explain 1. what that means, and 2. what a world of the alternative actually looks like (in a way that is not just a reassertion of the link story).

Disads: They're fine, generic or otherwise. While I generally think that it is important for Affirmatives to answer these offensively, I also think that well-reasoned defensive arguments can be very strategic (e.g. no link, no threshold, no internal link).

Case: Here's where the ND-debater in me comes out. I really enjoy a good case debate, and think that affirmatives that don't solve, also can't win. Similarly, I think that case is seldom used as offense against negative positions, and find myself rewarding debaters when they do this effectively.

Topicality: I don't think debaters need to win an abuse story to win on T. However, if this is the case, then the voting issues (be they jurisdiction, a priori, etc) really need to be explained. Generally, I do think that there needs to be some evidence of in-round abuse.

In General: Speed is fine, if you're clear. Slow-down on theory. Good-impact analysis will probably earn you at least 2 more speaker points.