Romero,+Norberto

Norberto Romero (working on B.A. in International Relations and Computer Science at Boston University) Affiliation(s): Newark Science(NJ) Experience: 4 years LD (competed locally, regionally, and nationally) - Newark Science

__//Speed//__ SLOW DOWN CONSIDERABLY on tags and authors of the cards your reading. A half second pause between the tag and the card also helps with flowing. I'll give more weight to an argument that I don't have to call for after the round, so take that into account when your spreading that really dense philosophy that nobody will understand the speed that you're reading. I've never been too fond of speed, even as a debater, so don't go incomprehensibly fast because I, honestly, won't be able to flow you.
 * PERFORMANCE**

//__Performance Debate__// Go for it... Explain why it's necessary. Basically, everything that I wrote for Kritiks, applies here as well.

Don't run skep, I won't vote on it. Don't run determinism, I won't vote on it. Don't run racist, homophobic, sexist, or any other -ist / -ism, I won't vote on it. Don't run anything that says that morality doesn't exist, I won't vote on it... Surprisingly enough, I feel debate has gotten to the point where I HAVE to say this before each round, because some debaters think it's okay to say offensive things in rounds. Also, just to be clear, when I say I won't vote on it, that's saying that even if your opponent completely drops the argument in both speeches, and you spend 5 minutes of the NR extending warrants, etc., I still won't vote for it. Actually, it'll just annoy me and lower your speaks.
 * ARGUMENTS**

Alexa White puts it beautifully in her paradigm... "I DO NOT LIKE MORAL SKEP. DO NOT RUN IT OR ELSE IT WILL PROVOKE BAD THOUGHTS TO RUN THROUGH MY MIND ABOUT YOUR ETHICAL STANDING AS A DEBATER AND AS A PERSON. I don't think slavery is/was okay. I don't think rape is okay. We have the moral language to prohibit rape and slavery from having happened and happening. You cannot have logic without context."

__//Kritiks//__ Make sure you slow down with tags and you explain the cards you're reading. DO NOT assume I know the literature or card, because I most likely don't. Even if it's about race or whiteness, slow down on important parts and make sure you do a damn well job explaining it in extensions. I want to hear warrants and applications specific to what you want me to vote on (i.e: I want to hear you, not a repetition of Wilderson). I'm open to all styles, so if you want to K the resolution, K the other debater's performance, K the debate community, K anything, go for it, just make sure you explain to me how you want me to evaluate the round. Also, if your opponent gives an alternative view, make sure you interact the two(root cause arguments, etc.), rather than just reiterating how you want me to resolve the round. If you don't do this, I will have to do it for you, and that will not necessarily end in your favor. Also, if you don't have an alternative, explain to me why you don't need an alternative, or why your world/advocacy is better than your opponent's.

//__CPs/DAs__// Make sure that you're specific to how they apply in the round. The policy-debate crossovers tend to get iffy in LD, especially since the aff usually doesn't have a plan, so don't make the debate muddled. If there is contestation over how I evaluate them in the round, make sure you resolve that before telling me to vote on these arguments.

__//Theory//__ I don't like theory but I GUESS I'll vote on it if there is actual abuse. I really enjoy alternative approaches to answering theory (K of theory, Aesthetic responses to theory, etc.) and think that debate should use more of these. I guess that being said, I lean more towards reasonability when it comes to Theory. To be honest though, I'd rather just not here it.

__//Philosophical Arguments//__ When it comes to meta-ethics, make sure you explain to me what the argument is, and the logical/empirical/emotional claim that is being made. Saying something is "meta"-anything does not make me automatically evaluate it first, you have to explain why it comes your opponents standard or why they're the same, or whatever is necessary. Also, spreading Korsgaard is not going to make me understand her anymore than I did when I was debating (this applies to all philosophers). I know the gist of what she's arguing (rationality, blah blah blah), but I don't know the difference between Korsgaard-1, Korsgaard-2, and Korsgaard-3 when you're making your extensions, so be clear in explaining them individually. Also, an entire paragraph right before your Korsgaard is not a tag, make sure you have an explicit tag in case when reading these kinds of cards.

//__Things Not to Assume Just Because of What I Ran as a Debater__ (that's a long title...)// When I debated, I ran lots of arguments about race, homophobia, etc. This does NOT mean that just because you have me in the back of the room you should pull out your "race case" or whatever minority/oppressed population you have a case on and just run it. Make sure that you have well-developed and well-explained case. Here's why, and I'll use the 2012-13 Jan/Feb topic to explain... Let's say you get up for 6 minutes in the AC and read 2 minutes of framework. Then, for 4 minutes, you just read a bunch of statistics that says their is a disproportionate amount of African Americans in jail and it's because of a lack of education and offer no more depth than just that... I can tell you, right now, EXACTLY what I'm thinking: So what you're telling me is that their are a lot of black people in jail AND the reason they're in jail is because they're dumb... (need I say more?). It's really easy to come off as offensive running these kinds of arguments if you just do superficial research on the topic to try and please a judge that you end up offending. Read some critical race literature before you run race arguments. Basically, if you're running Rawls and race arguments together, then you obviously don't understand what racism and oppression is...

So, please do some actual reading when you run these arguments. Also, if someone runs an argument against you on issues that oppressed populations are facing, and they superficially address the problem, call them out on it. I'll thoroughly enjoy that, and it can only help you. So long as you don't go overboard (attack the argument, not the debater) and you actually apply your questions in your speeches, then you should have a pretty successful round.

**WALL OF SHAKE MY HEAD** Things that I've heard in debate that make me shake my head... Think about this list when you're thinking about things not to say while I'm in round...
 * "How do you feel about offensive arguments?" - when being asked my paradigm
 * "Maybe the little boy wanted to get raped."
 * "The viewpoints of Muslims don't matter in the debate community because their aren't a lot of them here."


 * There are tons more, but I'll start adding them as of now... My philosophy in a nutshell? Try not to end up on this wall...

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round. You can also e-mail me at norberto.romero.r@gmail.com