Viveros,+Roman

//"Appreciate every single person. Look at them like a golden, million dollar baby."// - Lil B (American rapper, philosopher) __//***UPDATE FOR THE CRESTIAN TRADITIONAL ROUND ROBIN: I'M TIRED AF, DEBATE ACCORDINGLY**//__ I am an ex-Policy and LD debater coming out of small school J.P. Taravella High (FL), graduated 2014. Currently I am attending Florida International and on the parliamentary debate squad. If you have any questions, go ahead and shoot before the round starts. I default to Post-fiat util calc. I'm fine with speed, but I am not the greatest flower out there, so go easy on tags and analytics/blips. I'll probably miss your citation too, so don't say "Extend Suess 70". That's a good thing though: forces you to make better extensions.

Let's get on that good good

__**Policy**__ I am fine with most arguments. For the Aff, stock issues do become big voting issues (but not necessarily always primary voting issues). Contradictions are a reason to vote down. A/O/I-Spec are dumb. Speed theory will never win. Profanity theory is pointless, I will just dock their speaks anyway if it is really bad. Please, just please, do not run them around me. That being said, although I believe condo and pics are good, I would encourage these, and just about any, discussions in-round. Competing interpretations. Make sure to shell out the topicality or theoretical indict so I can follow it. RVIs are seldom bought, unless there is some gross abuse going on by whoever made the indict. That, of course, is up to my own personal discretion, so err on the side of the RVI will not be voted. For theory, it's almost always a reason to reject the argument. Overall, just go for it, flesh out your abuse stories, and my ballot will tell you all how you did. I will probably understand your thesis, but you should clearly flesh it out at some point anyway in case I do not, with a clear explanation of said thesis, link, and alternative world. I have some experience with most arguments in general but that by no means declares that I'm good with the K flow; err that I just didn't get your K. Do not forget your framework, and give me a clear reason why I should vote on it. I will add K affs and performance here too: explain the framework and give me reasons to vote in for you.
 * T**
 * K**

//For all right-policy debate arguments like case, CPs and DAs, I look to see if it is realistic first. If your argument is too farfetched I will not buy it.//

I default to PICs being good, but I'll vote either way if the discussion happens. I really like a good counterplan, with a great literature base that can realistically solve the harms of the 1AC and hold the DAs as a net benefit. Not to say I will not vote for generic counterplans, I just won't grant as many speaks as I would a good CP. Keep them realistic! If you run Dedev, F.E., do not tell me that the neg world will just collapse the economy and the environment will simply get better! Those kinds of arguments require great warrants. I also want clear link stories in the 1NC and the block well before the 2NR. I am very comfortable with debate being carried about traditionally (with warrants, impact calc, comparison of evidence, all that good stuff), but if you would like to run less-traditional argumentation that was not mentioned above, then by all means go for it. Lastly, if I did not flow it, you did not make the argument. Make sure I can understand you.
 * CP/CA**
 * DA**
 * Misc.**

__**Lincoln-Douglas**__ Speed is fine, but as said before, if I did not flow it, you did not make the argument. I hold that the Aff holds the burden of proof, ergo it is possible to err Neg on presumption. I also like Value/Criterion case structures a lot, but if your justification for any other structures is sound, I will listen in: however, I do believe that every AC should include some end goal, a "final state" that happens when you fiat the affirmative world. This is equivalent to the value in a Value/Criterion case. Theory is a hard position to flesh out in 2 speeches. Do with it what you must, just please do not stray from substance. I guess I'll vote how I have to, but won't be necessarily happy about voting for theory. Clear and articulate. Don't forget your "value" either as the Aff, it can severely cost you. For the Neg, I enjoy Value/Criterion debates a lot, but if you wish to go another route, then go ahead, you will just have to be a bit clearer on why I should vote Neg. I believe that framework is necessary for deciding the round, so do not go easy on it. If you want to know my opinion on several types of off-cases in LD, just extend my analysis from the Policy philosophy here. Just a couple of notes: 1. The affirmative case is the affirmative advocacy. Unless the aff brings it to my attention otherwise, we can pretend that the resolution is the affirmative plan/advocacy. 2. I default to post-fiat utility, so if you wish to run DAs or CPs, then I will vote with utility. Otherwise, give me clear reasons why I should vote with a different ethical paradigm or weighing mechanism.
 * Theory**
 * Framework**
 * Misc.**

__**Public Forum**__ I'm just going to highlight some issues below. None of you will probably read this anyway. Speed is fine for me, but not necessarily for the other debaters. If speed is an issue for the other team, do not speak fast. If you do, it will be reflected in your speaker points. An effective cross-fire means that the first speaker gets the first question, and the second speaker gets to answer and ask one too. This convention is in by means new, and if the cross-fire is courteous, then it will reflect on everyone's speaker points. I'm also probably playing solitaire during your cross-fire, so I will not flow during these portions. I thoroughly do not enjoy how debate is carried out in PFD. You can sway how I weigh the round, but generally: ethics come before economic or political issues, even if it's large scale. If evidence becomes an issue, as the only deciding factor (deity-forbid), I will call for evidence after the round, in which case if the evidence sways for any side by a margin of 50%+1, they get the win. I disclose and I critique. If you wish me not to, tell me so. I will mention this before the round. You are not to introduce new arguments past the rebuttals. If you lie in the final focus it will cost you.
 * Speed**
 * Cross-fire**
 * Weighing**
 * Disclosure**
 * Sleazing**

__**Parliamentary**__ If the round is interpreted to be policy, look at my policy paradigm. If it is value, look at my LD paradigm. If it is fact, look at my PFD paradigm. I will buy an RVI on T if you win that there was literally no abuse whatsoever. Really though, no is going to read this. I can say anything I want. Boogaloo shoe stepped in poo.

Again, ask me anything you want before the round. My favorite color is blue, Packers suck go Bears, Lucario is best pokemon.