Tran,+Delbert

Delbert Tran Bellarmine College Prep '11 Georgetown University '15 Conflicts: Bellarmine College Prep

I debated LD for 3.5 years in high school, debated on the circuit for 2.5 years, competed at TOC in 2011.

I'm open to most arguments/styles, just a few notes in particular:

Speed - It's been awhile since I've been involved in debate, haven't kept up since I graduated, so speed may be an issue. Please slow down and emphasize tags and author names. If I have an issue with speed, I will say so without deducting speaking points (not your fault if I'm rusty). I'm also a bit tolerant when it comes to clarity, because I know from experience that sometimes your mouth just doesn't work like you want it to. But please take the hint if I am having issue with your particular speed/clarity, and try to slow down to account for any issues that might occur. I may also call for cards/cases after the round, but I will evaluate those arguments compared to how I have them on my flow/based on how you articulate them through your rebuttals/extensions, and I will call them mainly if their exact content becomes an issue in the debate.

Having done extensive traditional/lay debate in addition to circuit debate, I also greatly appreciate a good traditional debate, if done well (that doesn't mean just being a good orator). Lay debate that can cover both the flow while simultaneously while being persuasive (in the traditional sense of debate) via a common-sense translation of the flow, strong/succint rhetoric, big picture awareness, crystallization, clear decision-calculus, etc., is also a high quality debate, in my opinion. If both debaters have a difference in styles (one is a lay debater, one a circuit one), please ask before round to see what style is most appropriate for the round (eg in a panel of 3, if there is at least one lay judge, I'd probably prefer you debate lay). If it's a bid tournament, I will default to a circuit style.


 * LD Paradigm**

Not any huge preferences that should change how you debate - these are more things I encourage rather than things that you should not do in front of me.

Frameworks - I am open to nearly all frameworks if sufficiently justified. That said, if you're attempting to justify multi a priori arguments, or even just one a priori, I expect that an a priori should be sufficiently developed as an argument to merit a ballot by itself, not just a 5 second blurb. Whether the resolution is a truth-testing statement involves a discussion of the purposes of debate, what it means for statements to be true, and what we mean by value-claims, which I doubt you can resolve in a few second blip of an argument.

Policy-style arguments - totally fine. Good policy-style arguments will have good control of uniqueness, strong links cemented by strong evidence, and good weighing analysis, especially comparative weighing (I am also a big fan of link-weighing, which is often neglected - I will buy that your much smaller but directly topical impacts on the criminal justice system matter more than the nuclear war scenario when the nuclear war scenario is built from contrived links, if you show me that through good link weighing).

Kritiks - I was a fan of Kritiks when I debated.That said, a good Kritik ought to have a properly developed framework for why the K affirms or negates/why the K specifically requires me to make a particular decision with my ballot. "Ontology outweighs nuclear war" is silly.

Theory - If theory is run as "drop the debater," I strongly lean towards fairness as the only standard to meet a sufficient threshold of abuse to give the ballot. Additionally, if theory is "drop the debater," I tend to accept that theory is an RVI, and am open to theory being an RVI even with just defensive arguments. If theory is run as drop the argument, I accept education as a standard and am more reluctant to buy an RVI, though I am still open if you have a persuasive enough argument.

Skepticism - this is the one thing I'd discourage running in front of me. I have a very, VERY high threshold for voting on skepticism. Basically, as long as your opponent has any ink on the flow against your argument that adheres to the structure of an argument, I will tend to vote against you.


 * Policy Paradigm**

Like my LD paradigm, no real substantive preference as to how you debate.

I am a big fan of quality evidence - cards with just big names making big claims is not good evidence. I am also a fan of debaters that can critically engage the content of each other's evidence and their content, and as always, doing so comparatively.

Theory - please slow down on the theory debate, if there's real abuse happening, I need to clearly understand your exact articulation of the abuse. Since I didn't do policy, there might be certain types of abuse that I might not be as familiar with. I did learn policy techniques in my own time doing debate, so I have a passing memory of things like multi-actor fiat, consult CPs, delay CPs, PICs, etc., but err on the safer side of explaining more why the other team's being abusive.

T - Same as Theory, slow down if there's real abuse. I tend to lean towards T backed up by strong evidence that explicitly addresses the resolution's conflict as it is discussed in professional research.

Kritiks - like in LD, I'm a fan of Ks, but since this is policy, please make sure you do a good job of giving a framework for why the K matters to me.


 * Other**

Performative Cases - I'm not sure what I would do were this to happen. Just know that this is inviting my intervention, which may go either way. I will do my best to reason my decision based upon the round and my understanding of race/gender/whatever, debate, and society, but I obviously can't preview the totality of my views here on such a large topic, nor express the totality of my subjective positionality here (which seems like a large factor of how I would resolve such a debate). I do, however, lean towards the idea that performance cases have to have some sort of link to the resolution.

Please give a clear decision-calculus at the end of the round.

Speaker points - I will reward developed and nuanced arguments (both stock and non-stock), and particularly strong comparative argumentation/clash.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Be nice, be friendly, good luck, and have fun!