Tupler,+Marc

Background: I debated on the national circuit for University School for four years qualifying to the TOC 3 times and reaching quarterfinals.

General Paradigm: Do whatever you want as long as it is justified. All of the following are default assumptions, but will change provided you warrant why I should adopt a different view. I default to assuming the aff burden is to prove the resolution true and neg prove it false. Speed is fine. I will yell clear as many times as necessary. Clash, explain argument interaction, do comparison or weighing.

Theory: I like it. I default to competing interpretations assuming all counter interps need an RVI to be justified in order to win the round. I have a slightly high threshold for RVIs or arguments about offensive counter interps. I am very open to adopting different views on theory and enjoy seeing well developed clash.

Any questions, feel free to ask.