Lumpee,+Daniel

I debated for 4 years at Crowley High School in Crowley, Texas on the local, state, and national level and graduated in 2010. I am a student at Duke Divinity School and I have been an assistant LD coach at Northland Christian School (Houston, TX) since 2012.

(Updated for Apple Valley 2016)

Short version:

I've been away from the national circuit for 4ish years. I read lots of topic literature, and understand many nuances within LD, but do not assume I am up to date on the most recent trends. Not saying I won't vote for them--just explain them to me in round.

I default to a comparative worlds framework, unless given justifications to do otherwise. I prefer a stock, ends-based debate. Go fast, but not too fast. If I don’t understand you, there’s a good chance I won’t flow your argument/won’t vote for you. Weigh arguments, give extensions with a claim, warrant and impact. Be nice.

Long version:

1) I was a traditional debater. I ran a lot of really stock cases and never branched too far off the topic. Intricate T debates or deep K debates that assume a baseline knowledge of an obscure 16th century French philosopher are probably not the best idea in front of me. If I do not understand your argument at the end of the round, I probably will not vote for it.

2) I prefer a comparative worlds framework, where both sides defend a world where the resolution is/isn’t enacted and weigh and compare these worlds. Please link to a standard/criterion/burden that shows why your world is preferable. That being said, I am open to truth testing or other paradigms if justifications are given for why I should adjudicate the round in that way. Additionally, I do not like skepticism. You really, really have to do a great job justifying truth testing and skepticism for me to vote on it; your one-sentence "triggers" in the 1AC probably won't pick up my ballot, and if they do, it will be a LPW.

3) I view theory as competing interpretations. (If theory is run against you, run a counter interp/reasons to prefer your interp.) To get me to vote on theory, you need to show actual abuse. Fairness is a voter. Not the only voter, but a voter always. Put away your generic "fairness isn't a voter" frontlines and have a real theory debate. Slow down when running theory, please. I flow on paper like we did back in the good ol days.

4) I will not vote for arguments that I find morally repugnant. For example, cases that say genocide/suffering is good will not win my ballot. If you have a question about whether or not your position would fit what I view as “repugnant,” please ask me before the round.

5) I wasn’t a very quick debater, and I didn’t do well against debaters that were extraordinarily fast. So, you might want to slow down a little bit for me. I probably won’t vote for an argument I didn’t flow because you were going too fast. Slow down for tags, authors, etc.

6) Policy-oriented positions (DAs, CPs, etc) are fine, so long as they link to a standard.

7) If you're going to run a meta-ethic, you HAVE to tell me why it comes before ethical frameworks. If you just assert that your meta-ethic comes first (because it's trendy and has the prefix "meta"), I probably won't make it preclude other frameworks. Tell me why your meta-ethic uniquely comes before your opponent's ethical standard and we'll be fine.

8) I generally consider myself fairly generous when it comes to speaker points. You start at a 27.5 and go up or down. To get good speaker points from me, be clear, nice, persuasive, and execute a coherent strategy. To get bad speaker points from me, be really unclear, rude, and not fun to listen to.

9) I have a high threshold for what a good extension is. They need a claim, warrant and impact. You must extend your criterion for me to weigh it. I'll give a little leeway in the 1AR and 2AR, but it needs to be a complete extension.

10) Be nice. Rude debaters and debaters who employ shady tricks will not do well in front of me. I don't think it's cute, I dont' think it's funny. Debate is an academic activity; treat it as such. But also have fun. If you make me laugh (not at the expense of your opponent), your speaks will go up.

11) I don't understand the new obsession with skep or skep triggers. I think they're (generally) underdeveloped arguments that aren't very strategic. I will vote for these arguments if I have to, but you'll lose speaks and make me unhappy.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at dlumpee@yahoo.com