saldaña,+eb

Did Policy for 3 years at DuPont Manual High School, some experience with LD, parli in college.

For policy It's been awhile since I've had to listen to spreading; I'm usually all right on speed, but you still need to be clear, especially on tags. Also plz to signpost? I generally tend to not vote on T or theory. I will do it if I think that someone is doing something really truly detrimental to debate, but for the most part, I think they're both a waste of time. If you're going to go for theory in the rebuttals, it needs to be five minutes of T or theory, and GOOD T or theory. I also tend to shy away from politics scenarios, simply because I think they're a little boring and not very sound. I generally ran Ks in high school, and I think they make for interesting debates, but if you're going to do it and not read framework, I default to whatever the Aff framework is. Yeah you really have to read framework for ks, sorry. Finally, please weigh your shit for me - I need to know what I should evaluate and why coming out of rebuttals, and it's up to you to tell me what that is supposed to be (because we all hate judge intervention) (yes even the judges hate intervention) Any other questions, just ask me.

For LD LD debate is value debate. I want to hear solid, clear, well-organized, logical arguments in both cases. I get enough spreading and insanity in policy and do not want it to be carried over into LD. I'll listen to progressive and policy-style arguments, but don't expect me to vote on them without addressing the value structure that is a part of LD debate. Also please do not read generic impacts or I will mock you.

If you can be creative and innovative within the structure and come up with new and interesting arguments. I put a lot of weight on writing. Well-written cases score huge points with me, so if you're looking for speaks (and you should be), that's where to find them.