Andrade,+Nancy

=
I'm Nancy and I have debated for about five years and still going at San Francisco State University. As a debater I focus on cultural criticisms as well as criticisms of modernity, coloniality, and race/gender. I am providing my background to highlight my interests, and not as a deterrent from having me in the back of the room. I see debate as a space for knowledge production, where we can use our ideas about the world to transform the world or make it a better place. The ideas and approaches are not exclusively critical approaches, I think that traditional teams also attempt to make the world a better place. =====

=
My approach to evaluating debate is pretty simple, the debaters get to decide what the debate should be about, be that a plan text or a critical approach to the topic. There are various approaches to the resolution and I am open to listening to your particular approach. That in mind I will provide a disclaimer, do not say evil things for the sake of competition, that approach is not persuasive at all! By evil I mean saying that genocides are good/necessary or that rape is ok, this extreme is not one that will persuade me to vote for you.=====

=
Because this activity requires so much time, energy, and effort from each debater to develop their arguments I try to weigh all arguments fairly. However, if the opposing team has an argument as to why I should prefer "state action," or why I should "rethink my epistemology first" and can explain/impact it well enough this is where I am likely to vote. Ultimately, what I am trying to get at is that if this is really a "game" then every player-even the judge-should have a role in it. That being said I would like to see a role of the ballot/explanation of what your advocacy/plan text means to me-how should I view the round?=====

=
Contextualize the framework debate to the affirmative, example of the topical version of the aff, and how the 1AC in particular causes the impact(s). I think the way Tom Meagher describes the framework/theory debate is pretty accurate of my interpretation of it also:===== "Non-traditional affs are neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad; the traditions themselves are historically shaped and have changed frequently. I'll vote neg on theory arguments if they're won, but winning these arguments on either side requires a philosophical engagement with substantive ideas. If there's a problem with the logic of the topic that is articulated by the aff, and they win that debate is a good space to try to shape our education in order to address that problem, I'll be willing to vote aff. You are better off making a topicality argument about the specific mechanisms in the topic, other than USFG/Resolved, that the aff's critical approach doesn't allow the neg to deal with, rather than making a generic USFG framework argument. I have heard the state action good/bad debate plenty of times and am not necessarily interested in hearing it much more, though if it's all you've got and you execute it perfectly I'll vote for it. You're better served addressing the substance of the aff and using T arguments about what other mechanisms in the topic mean or imply (i.e., financial incentives and restrictions on the Energy Production topic or infrastructure investment on the Transportation topic) in order to argue that the aff's non-USFG-centric approach hurts your ability to negate because of the mechanisms for exploration it uses rather than because the non-USFG focus itself is bad for debate."

=
__**Topicality:**__ It's a good argument and I enjoy it when done correctly; I ten to grant the neg questions of predictability/ground whereas I'm aff leaning on questions of limits. Regardless, if you lose topic implied ground in the debate and their interpretation makes it hard to be able to predict crucial parts of the aff, then I think it would be pretty good to go for T in the 2NR. Aff, if you did a well enough job defending why your counter interp causes better debates in a predictable way then I'd be willing to vote aff even if you might lead to negs having to research more cases.=====

__**K:**__ This being my area of debate, I know how it has to be done to be done well. That being said links must be specific to plan action or specific areas of the plan. To say that just because the plan increases infrastructure development is too generic, unless you have a extremely good and time devoted reason as to why that is bad. I have a high threshold for alternative explanations, I want to be able to look at the affirmative team and describe to them the distinction between the alternative and the perm at the end of the debate, if I can't do that then you're probably needing to do a better job. I think the aff should in almost every circumstances go for the perm, and be sure to call them out on their generic links and be able to explain why the goal of the alternative can ONLY be reach WITH the perm. Also, pedagogy alternatives have an in round education impact if you don't address this, it will be less likely for you to win. Also, if the pedagogy alt. team does not address the "real world" impacts of the aff, the aff should exploit this and use it as a unique instance the alternative cannot solve for. As for performance, it has to be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and the team must be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world itself. Please don't do performance just to do it... you MUST have a purpose. Usually, if one team asks me to view the debate with a performative lens I will view both teams with a performative lens. It is up to the debaters to be able to impact why that is bad or why it is good. Use your performance offensively! __**CP/Disad/Case debates:**__ I think these debates are strategic and go hand in hand. Be able to explain, the more specificity in these debate the better. I prefer a clear and articulated distinction between the CP and the aff, and in the 2NR if you go for it, if you want me to weigh the squo and the CP against the aff at the end of the debate, tell me. Remember, the CP has to be able to solve and address some of the fundamental issues of the aff, dealing with the aff is crucial especially if it's a performance or critical aff... Only go for case turns! case defense only serves as supplements to other arguments.

In the end, I enjoy smart and engaging arguments. I would leave your round happier if you are creative and passionate. Spreading through the same authors and silly debate tags just make me laugh. Otherwise, enjoy yourselves and do whatever you do best.