Alvarado-Mullins+Catherine

 Just a few quick details about myself:

 I will suspend disbelief while in round, so even the most unrealistic arguments have weight in round if you have the evidence to prove it’s “true”. I place more weight on well-developed arguments backed with sufficient evidence over rationality and word of mouth.

 Spreading is awesome, and I appreciate a great spreader. However, if you cannot properly articulate your args at high speeds, then it’s better to sacrifice the spread for quality. There’s hardly a point to going that fast if no one can understand you.  In-round Etiquette:

 Don’t be rude to your opponents and especially to your partner. I’ll dock your speaks heavily.

 I prefer impact analysis to occur earlier in round than the 2nr/2ar.

 Organization is a must; please announce your order before you begin. Also if you say you’ll go down the line-by-line please do that or at least signpost.

 If you choose to read off of a laptop please flash over your cards to your opponents, and if you don’t read certain cards then just indicate this before the start of the CX period. If you choose to read from cards then please allow your opponents to see your cards. Sharing is caring y’all.  --  --  T is cool as long as it’s a well-proposed T-violation that has good impact analysis. However, it’s pretty much a lost cause if the aff proves reasonable topicality.

 Theory: Please always put theory on a separate flow, if you don’t it gets messy and I am  //very//   flow-centered. If theory goes unanswered, it’s a voter.

 DA’s: I prefer more specific dis-ads with a good story, but if you do run something nonspecific like a politics DA, make sure you have a specific link to the aff and a scenario that is current to the current political sphere. Additionally, I expect exceptional impact calculus as to why I should prefer your DA to the aff.

 CP’s: I enjoy counter-plans as long as they are competitive with the aff. However, I think some CP’s like Supreme-Court CP is pretty dumb, more so if the net-benefit is a vague politics DA. However, a specific counter-plan can be fun and intellectually stimulating.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> Word-PICS: I like to idea of a well-articulated Word-PIC, however I have personally never witnessed one. Usually the team never has enough time, or evidence to well articulate why changing a word or phrase is solves for the aff’s net benefits.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> Kritiks: I like running and listening to Kritiks. I don’t think they are cheating or an illegimate form of debate; they are simply another way for the neg to attack the aff from a different perspective. However, I do expect the team to thoroughly explain how the kritik functions and how it links to the affirmative, the impact, and if you solve. Tossing around fancy jargon, and listing off dead French guys, doesn’t mean you understand what the kritik advocates, and I am not going to figure it out for you.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> Framework: I enjoy a well-articulated framework debate, and I believe a debate round has the potential to change someone’s mind-set. I prefer framework on a separate flow.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> Performance: Well, I’m not opposed to performance debates however; I have never witnessed a well-executed performance round. If you want to go for performance then just go for it and I’ll listen.