Chavez,+Alexis

I debated for three years at Von Steuben High School Currently debating at Loyola University Chicago (parli) In high school I ran an array of arguments; however, during my senior year I almost exclusively ran kritik-heavy arguments. I’m well versed in most literature as I’ve run anything from Cap to Baudrillard to identity politics arguments. However much I would want to be a tab judge, I am not and most people aren’t either. I do not consider myself a policy-maker, rather an ethical decision maker. Though I will try to lay out my preferences, feel free to ask any questions pre-round. I’m very much concerned with making debate an //accessible// safe space. Below I have outlined some specific things that will ensure your loss. Please do not be afraid to call people out!
 * __ About me: __**

-You use problematic language (this includes racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or any other offensive language) -Misgendering someone (I would rather you all ask for each other’s pronouns to avoid this, but will understand and respect if you feel uncomfortable disclosing this)
 * __ You will lose if: __**

I am fine with speed as long as you are clear. If you feel uncomfortable spreading, then don’t do it! J
 * __ Speed: __**

Not a big fan of theory so I’m honestly not the best judge for you if that’s your thing. As far as condo goes: as long as you don’t run more than two conditional advocacies, you should be fine. I DO NOT want to police you all so take this in consideration when running these kinds of arguments in front of me. Most theory debates are poorly executed and lack depth anyway. If I am forced to evaluate theory, I will reject the argument and not the team.
 * __ Theory: __**

I generally default to reasonability, but can be convinced to default to competing interpretations. If and when the debate boils down to topicality, then here are a few things to know: 1) Have a clear interpretation and make sure your evidence has the __intent__ to define. 2) Clearly explain the violation in terms of the aff and how they interact. I do not and will not only view the plan “in a vacuum.” 3) If the debate is about competing interpretations, then please explain what the world looks like under yours/their interpretation and why that’s good/bad. The best (and really the only) way to win that your interpretation is better is to clearly delineate and impact your standards. Because I’m not a policy-maker, do not make any jurisdiction arguments—I’ll probably not evaluate them. 4) If the debate boils down to reasonability, then it you’re the negative’s burden to prove why the aff doesn’t reasonably fit your interpretation (obviously).
 * __ Topicality: __**

I would rather you not run framework arguments calling out a K team on “cheating”. That being said, if you decide to run framework, do so as a method kritik instead of having me exclude the aff. I think that performance and kritik debates are valuable and vital to the activity. IF you do not read a plan text that is fine, so long as you have an advocacy. IF you do not read an advocacy text/anything of the sort (no stasis point) then I will probably be persuaded by parametrics arguments, so be ready to defend the aff against these arguments— just treat it like an impact debate about the importance of a stasis point/mechanism.
 * __ Framework: __**

I will vote on disads, but please have specific links. Even if you don’t have the most specific cards for the link level, please provide a good spin on the link and show how it interacts with __specific__ parts of the aff’s mechanism(s). The key to winning a DA is case defense and good impact calc. I do think that there can be a zero risk. Also, I prefer realistic, high probability impacts over hype and nuclear-war level impacts. Lastly, simply saying “uniqueness overwhelms the link” gets you nowhere—please be sure to explain any jargon when running a disad.
 * __ Disadvantages: __**

I’m fine with counterplans as long as they aren’t word PICs or consult CPs. Full disclosure: I’m not the best judge when debating the counterplan but I will try to evaluate these debates to the best of my ability. I believe that counterplans should be textually AND functionally competitive. Also, you should be reading specific solvency cards and would prefer you don’t just have a ten-second-long counterplan text but no solvency advocate—it’s not a good strategy and you probably won’t win. Finally, I won’t judge kick a counterplan. I default to the idea that if you go for it in the 2nr, then you MUST win the counterplan to win the debate.
 * __ Counterplans: __**

Both sides should interact with the case as much as possible, otherwise there would be no point in reading a 1ac. Also, it improves your arguments J
 * __ Case: __**

I love the K. This does not mean that I will automatically vote for you if you read one in front of me. Though I’m well versed in most K literature, there’s still the possibility that I may not have read or know about your arguments. That being said, some arguments may require you to give in depth explanations about the thesis of the kritik. Also, buzzwords mean nothing unless they’re explained—remember, even if I understand your kritik but you haven’t explained your high theory K (for example), then I won’t expect the other team to provide hyper-specific responses. Some specifics: - Always provide some sort of framing. I feel that a lot of the time, debates can be won on this level. Why does what you’re saying matter and what is the role of the ballot (or alternatively, the role of the judge). In the end, I should know exactly what I’m voting for and __why__. My RFD should always be “I voted aff/neg to__……..__” You’d fill the blank with the ROB. - I prefer specific links, but if you do not have these, then provide a good spin on it and how the aff specifically triggers the link. Do not just describe the status quo—tell me how a part of the aff doing X causes Y. Aff, you should better be prepared to defend the __implications__ of your plan—you won’t simply win by saying that your plan text does not trigger the link in itself. - Links of omission are legit, but there are better links so you should probably stick to more specific links. - As far as alts go: I think that you should provide a specific mechanism. I tend to think that “reject all instances”-like alts are vague and unproductive. If you run these alts, by the end of the block your alt should be clearly fleshed out and broken down. - It’s probably smarter to have case defense than not and makes it easier to justify a negative ballot. Aff, even if you don’t extend all of case at the end (on the case proper flow), always use it to your advantage. - All permutations should have net benefits. - Severance perms are no fun, but I haven’t seen a team successfully run severance theory. Like I said, theory debates are no fun anyways. - Do NOT run a K in front of me just for the sake of it or because you think I’m more likely to vote for you. If you run it poorly then I’ll be very sad and somewhat annoyed L
 * __ K: __**

- I won’t argue with you about my decision. I can’t go back and change my decision so don’t waste yours or my time. - I usually won’t call cards at the end of the round unless there is a debate about what a card says. It is your job to extrapolate from and to explain cards/arguments to me. - I do not take time for flashing so don’t worry about it. Be respectful and don’t steal prep because I will notice if you do and you’ll probably get lower speaks because of it. - It’s the debater’s job to keep track of time. I dislike doing it anyway. - Be respectful and make good arguments and you can expect to receive good speaks.
 * __ Misc.: __**