Delgado,Ruben


 * __*If you are in a hurry I suggest you read through at bare minimum the underlined portions of my paradigm*__**

__I debated LD for four years at the Law Magnet__ (TX). During my time at the law magnet I was coached by Kristopher Wright. Therefore, a good part of my perspective on debate coincides with his. __I have been out of the actvity for a few years. Last time I debated was in 2013. I do not believe this affects my ability to understand arguments but it does mean I'm not up to date on all the debate jargon & top speed is probably not a good idea.__


 * __Notes:__**
 * Default:** By default I mean that absent of either debater making arguments on how I should evaluate that issue I will evaluate things X way.


 * Ways I evaluate certain things in round:**

As it stands now I do not dislike theory. I view theory as an opportunity for debaters to advance their vision of debate by arguing for what debates should look like. However, I do realize that theory is not used in this manner every time. __On theory I default to a competing interpretations paradigm.__ Meaning, when listening to theory I will not actively aim to gauge things like whether theory was actually necessary or whether the amount of in-round abuse was sufficient to merit theory (Unless of course arguments are made as to why I should do those things).
 * Theory:**

A __notch or two below top speed would be appreciated and recommended because I will not vote an argument in which I feel I did not sufficiently capture the internals of.__ I realize even with this explanation there still exist ambiguity so __I say clear and/or slower as needed.__
 * Speed:**

__I like when a debater establishes a clear burden structure.__ When a debater establishes a clear framework, a decision calculus, in which I am to evaluate offense and decide the winner. __I do not default to a truth-testing or comparative worlds paradigm__. If there isn’t an explicit paradigmatic debate, I will adjudicate within whichever paradigm the debaters appear to be using.
 * General:**

__I am okay with asking questions during prep time as long as both debaters agree on it.__
 * Stylistic Preferences:**
 * 1) 1. __I prefer debate cases that have a clear organizational structure.__
 * 2) 2. __I like when debaters flesh out the implications of their arguments__ and also do things such as take the time to paint me a ballot story/breaking down the round for me. Actions such as those are rewarded with speaks.
 * CX**

Lastly__, feel free to ask me any questions before the round,__ if there was any confusion or something was not included in paradigm

1. New trends seem to pop up in debate every year. Ultimately an argument is just an argument however I would be careful with the use of debate jargon if you're running an experimental position or something like that. Being removed from the activity a while means I'd first have to decode the jargon and then start comprehending your arguments.
 * Miscellaneous**