Lindo,+Byron

Debated for Downtown Magnets High School for 2 years for the Los Angeles Metro Debate League (LAMDL) area from 2009-2011 Debating for California State University, Northridge from 2011 to Now

I enjoy debate, i also enjoy the creativity it brings, that being said i am open to any and all types of argument if your gonna argue wipe-out and Malthus then do it i wont vote you down just because it's crazy. I am open to all types of arguments don't let a question of morality, ethics, or doubt stop you from running your arguments so even if you do go for stupid arguments as long as their well explained and impacted then you got my attention. Now to the meat of my philosophy like i said above all arguments have to be well explained, extended, and impacted for me to vote on. I dont think an arguement is stupid unless it's horribly explain, a wash, and not very warranted this tend to happens in K debates.


 * Topicality/Vagueness/Plan Flaw/Whatever-SPEC** - Love them all except for the SPEC arguments i really don't want to hear F-SPEC in the 2NR. When going for arguments like these especially for Topicality, explanation and comparison are your best weapons. On the T debate don't just tell me it's a voter tell me why it's a voter what education have you lost in debate or maybe why should fairness be //a priori?// is it because with no rules theres no debate? Explain, tell me a story on T i want to hear where the abuse is and why it has effected the round so drastically that i must vote on it, fulfill those requirements and the ballot is yours. As for the Affirmative i would like to hear counter-interpretation why do you say your definition is better and some standards. I find reasonability to be a good standard i mean if the definition is good isn't it good enough? why should you be punish because your definition or aff doesn't best meet topicality. Argue that T becomes infinitely regressive at a point where they want us to go on and on about how we are space exploration or development.


 * Theory -** Also love it same as with T tell me the abuse or the conflict of interest and why should i vote on it i find myself erring neg on most CP theory unless it's well articulated or explained like a big Conditionality Good/Bad debate. International Fiat theory, Consult CP bad theory, Multi-actor Fiat theory i will listen to them all, but i don't tend to vote on theory when the Aff or Neg sufficiently answer it. The opposite is also true I tend to instantly vote on theory when the opposing team doesn't answer it at all and if it has a voter, just extend it and explain it and sit down keep doing that and you got the ballot and at least 29 speaks.


 * DA**- There cool, really specific and warranted Disads are great to hear along with stuff like Pltx DA's i'm all ears just be sure to explain the link story, sufficiently extend it, and impact calculus on why it turns or outweighs case. I am also a huge fan of the Riders Pltx Disad.


 * CP**- My specialty, forget that you need evidence if it's a plan you never heard of before just CP away and read Disads as net benefit and let your logical explanation on how the CP works be your solvency. If the aff does read or make solvency deficit claims then i feel at that point you should start providing me with evidence on how your actor or cp will solve. Also don't be afraid to just CP something crazy like the USFG will do the Plan and Ban this other part of the Plan and pass this politics Scenario then read Pltx DA as a net benefit. From the aff i expect to hear solvency deficit and Disads to the CP on why their actor or action would cause harm to the status quo. Also i expect a well explained Permutation, sure there is the do both perm, but let think outside the box a lot of times your affirmatives are hot button issues that need to be addressed so Perm that you can use the plan and have the actor fund it and use it to solve their spending disad. On Consult CP as shocking and abusive as everyone makes them sound, i love them, use them, and will always be happy to hear one. Yes the Aff will run Consult CP theory bad just argue it's good and beside some of the issues we have now are so hot button and radically new that not consulting would be political suicide for the US. For the Aff to argue against Consult CP just trap them use the Normal Means Double Bind and the lie permutation. Argue consultation is bad and the best arsenal you got is the actor will say No.


 * K's** - ehh. There ok i mean i love philosophy i run k's i like them when there well explained and intelligently used, but i find more and more debates seem to skim through the ideologies of the author and twist it to some monstrosity that says something completely different. Here you need to be really clear explain the story well and tell me why the alt is a better choice and why the Aff is bad. I will often think your K is stupid when you run arguements like "(this) is the root cause of (that)" seriously no one thing is the root cause of an entire form of oppression or any impact for that matter. I'd prefer to hear the Aff specific action would justify these horrible impacts and the alt solves this. Also if i don't get (understand) the K at the end of the round cause you didn't articulate it well enough i will vote you down.


 * Performance** - Very fun to watch, but same as K please explain clearly and on top of that you need to have very good reasons why your a performance if your aff cause i strongly believe that the resolution should be up-holded unless you find some witty and interesting way to tell me it's not, remember i'm open to any and all crazy arguments. I will warn performance Affs that if at any point you find yourself arguing that you should win because of your performance then know you are probably not winning my ballot. I find that winning because your a performance is no different from a team reading fem k saying vote for us cause were feminist it's just a dumb reason to vote on. I'd prefer you to tell me the arguments you make through the performance rather than voting on the performance itself.


 * K Aff's** - Same as performance tell me why you don't defend the resolution and make it a good reason. Be clear, articulate your arguments, and tell me how you want me to evaluate the round. Neg should be on top of their game and run the general framework/t shell but let's get smarter here i would much prefer to hear their evidence and their authors argument just for you to point out the aff doesn't do that, if the aff calls for the destruction of capitalism and you point out one of their cards says we need to have a transitional revolution for that and the aff doesn't do that then that sounds like a pretty effective argument to make.


 * Framework**- Only cause i feel it's being brought up more and more, i need both teams to tell me how the debate should be frame in whatever way you want it to be framed give me standards reason to prefer and good luck don't get me wrong i love a good framework debate but it's up in the air until you tell me what your framework is.


 * Role of the Ballot**- Nice if it's in the k, it would only help me more if you explain it and it's a good thing to have for me to evaluate the round by if your going for the k. The aff needs a counter interpretation to it i don't care anything like extinction out weighs or whoever saves the most lives, it's really round dependent and most of all your decision.


 * Moral Debates**- honestly i don't like the debates that say morals come before anything, put morals first, we have an ethical obligation. I find that extinction outweighs will beat these back efficiently because it's just true in a world where we are all dead then it's over, what morals are left. It would be better to save future generations then to let us all die at once to feel good before death. That doesn't mean i wont vote here but i need a pretty good case dump on why extinction won't happen and then why morals comes first whether it be the argument that it gives life meaning or whatever.

Any question just ask before or after round or email me i'm always to help alexanderlindo25@yahoo.com