Tupler+Josh

Background: I debated on the national circuit for University School qualifying to the TOC three times reaching quarterfinals.

General Paradigm: Do whatever you do best, just justify your arguments and provide a framework to evaluate the round (I don't care what it is). Explain argument interaction and provide a method to prioritize arguments. All of the following are defaults, and I will change my views as long as you justify why I should. I default to assuming the AFF has the burden to prove the resolution true and the NEG to prove it false. I will shout clear as many times as necessary, but your speaks will suffer after the second time.

Theory: I like it. I default to assuming competing interps where all counter interps need an RVI in order to be a reason to vote off of. I have a slightly high thershold for RVIs and arguments about why I should adopt an offensive counterinterp model. It is very important to clash, prioritize, and weigh on theory.

Any questions, feel free to ask.