Donatti,+David

I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Texas, during which time I competed all across the national circuit. Currently, I help coach The Brentwood School in California, and I have also coached at the Victory Briefs Institute.

My paradigm is very simple and probably very conventional. I will vote on any argument that is won if that argument has a clear decision calculus and a link to my ballot. What that means is that you must clearly establish, in your constructives and your rebuttals, a cohesive argument with warrants and clearly articulated impacts. I prefer to be as blank slate as you'll let me be, and making the round easy for me is greatly preferred.

A Prioris:

That is not to say, however, that I will be very sympathetic to a debater who runs multiple 'a priori' arguments with weakly articulated one-sentence warrants and impacts. I don't like that. If you want to make an argument, make it, and that means clearly fleshing out why an argument is important. The more 'a priori' an argument is, the more analysis I want to see there.

That being said, opponents of such positions should not rely on me as the judge to exclude any arguments. I will be sympathetic to theoretical violations, or give more weight to your responses to a prioris, but I won't do any of the work for you. So, I will vote on whatever you give me, but if you REALLY want to win an argument, you have to be willing to put in as much work as time allows to win that argument. I'll feel better about voting on any argument you spend more than 5 seconds on, so if you really want my ballot just be sure to clearly articulate what an argument is, why its important, and why it comes before everything else when I'm making my decision.

Theory:

Theory is fine, of course, when its called for. But, when you use theory as a generic a priori argument of a different form, that also bothers me. If there is abuse, call it out. Don't hesitate. If there isn't, don't. I won't exclude anything automatically, but if there's a badly articulated, blippy shell in the 1NR or 1 AR, I'll give some weight to any responses made. Similarly, if your 2ar ellaboration of theory is two minutes longer than the 1ar shell, I'll generally try to evaluate the shell as presented in the 1ar.

I love theory, and I think that it is necessary in many different scenarios. If you think something is illegitimate in round, make the argument. I will vote on it if you win it.

Speed:

It's fine. I haven't debated in about two years now, so I probably can't flow the fastest of the fast very easily, but I'll let you know in round if your speed is too much or if I can't understand you by yelling 'clear' once. After your first gimme, I'll put my pen down and look up. Just be sure to look at how I'm doing in the back of the room when you're reading or responding and you'll be fine. I'll make perfectly clear whether or not I'm understanding you, you just have to adjust accordingly. As a general presumption, though, assume that if you're articulating, I'm understanding.

Comparative Worldviews versus Truth Testing:

I was raised in a debate environment where Truth Testing was the norm, so if two debaters are operating under the two different paradigms, I'll generally defer to Truth Testing unless arguments are made otherwise. If both debaters are comparing worlds, though, I'll compare worlds. I as the judge will do whatever debaters tell me to, just be sure that, if you and your opponent disagree, that you warrant why your paradigm is better.

I'm not sure if I'm leaving anything out, but if you have any questions just ask me in round or email me at donatti.david@gmail.com