De+La+O,+Dino

Updated for Stanford/Berkeley 2018



I debated for four years at Law Magnet in Dallas, Texas and graduated in 2016. I qualified to the TOC as a junior and senior and I’ve taught at TDC and NSD. I actively coach on the circuit.

__**Tech > Truth:**__ - Everything on my paradigm is a presumption/preference, or things I’m compelled by. I will default to what is on this paradigm but you can always change my presumption by making arguments in favor of doing so. - I will evaluate most arguments with warrants. - Please extend and explain your arguments. - Speed is fine but prioritize clarity over speed. I will yell clear. - Slow down on interps, author tags, and [|advocacy] text

- I default to truth testing. However, I do not think truth testing excludes the possibility of alternative advocacies. If the position is competitive with the resolution and better links into the winning framework, then it proves the resolution false.
 * __Truth Testing v Competing Worlds:__**

- Running topicality for strategy is fine - Default to semantics > pragmatics - Default to competing interps and no RVIs - Don’t make defaults on voters and implication (fairness/ed. & drop the debater/arg) extend your arguments. - I tend to enjoy T shells with a semantics-limits-tva structure - I’m compelled by TVA if the 2NR explains how it solves the counter standards and not just extends it through ink - I like limits standards against K affs but I also equally like K interaction against limits - Default to T > 1ar theory but can easily change
 * __Topicality:__**

- Running theory for strategy is fine - I default to 1AR theory is legit - 1AR combo shells can easily become annoying if not executed properly. If I can’t understand the initial abuse story, it will be hard for me to vote for you. - Compelled by solvency advocate theory but you can defend your args - Compelled by full text disclosure theory but you can defend your args
 * __Theory:__**

- TJFs are fine - Epistemic Modesty is fine but not my presumption - I’m compelled to think one conditional pic is fine but run theory if you want - PICs out of something that is normal means for the aff to defend are fine but the neg must have evidence for normal means - I’m more compelled by perms that explain how they shield the link to the disad - I tend to favor weighing that explains why the weighing calculus matters under util. I.e. util cares about timeframe, reversibility, etc. - You could read LARP prep with non-util frameworks
 * __LARP:__**

- Postmodern Ks can make it or break it. If you can’t explain your position I won’t be compelled by it, but I really enjoy these debates. - Enjoy pessimism debates - Don’t feel particularly strong about the need for a ROB if the K explains its impact but you do you - 2NR overview explaining the K is appreciated - 2NR should explain how the alt shields the link and is competitive - permutations should explain how they shield the link - reps ks/pics are fine - I think reading a K and a phil NC is somethings incompatible because they often argue for competing weighing mechanisms. The exception is when one of the two is a hijack to the aff.
 * __K:__**

- Western phil is fine. I enjoy heavy phil strats as much as I enjoy heavy K strats. - K args in NC format are fine. - If the debate shifts to comparative worlds, be prepared to defend an advocacy.
 * __Phil:__**

- Totally fine with these and don’t really care if you are in the direction of the topic. - Equally fine with T as a heavy strategy against these affs.
 * __Performance/non T affs:__**

- I’ll evaluate burden structure ACs but I’m also compelled by semantical objections against the burden making no sense in relation to answering the resolution. - I’m fine if debaters go for truth testing against non-t affs
 * __Burden Structures:__**

- Don’t particularly like blippy spikes. Will ignore claims without warrants. Developed spikes are fine.
 * __Tricks/Spikes:__**

- I evaluate speaker points purely based on strategy and whether or not you actually listened and slowed down when I yelled clear. - The more you adapt to this paradigm, the higher your speaks will be.
 * __Speaker Points__:**

- I don’t count flashing as prep time. - Everything must be together in one speech doc before you stop prep to flash.
 * __Miscellaneous__****:**