Lucas Bryant ParadigmLast changed 9/22 5:18P CDT
Updated - 9/22/2019
Hi, I’m Lucas Bryant, I debated for around 4 years on the national circuit in LD and have dabbled in policy, congress once, and PF like twice.
Email - firstname.lastname@example.org
General info- primary role is minimizing intervention and be tab, assumptions like the AC is 6 minutes and conceded arguments are true I will enforce probably unless convinced otherwise. Everything is fair game. Also, tech > truth. For lay, I give leeway if neither debater extends but if one does and the other doesn't it's an auto-L for the person who didn't.
Speaks- I use John Staunton's speaks mechanism now. https://www.dropbox.com/s/uiw9hvdy5yl0t1h/Speaker%20Points.pdf?dl=0
Framework- losing influence in the meta which is a shame, determines what offense is / what impacts are/ how to weigh. I default to epistemic confidence, Biggest mistake in framework rounds is just a bunch of conceded preclusion claims with no interaction, I’ll attempt to resolve these by doing work myself which I don’t want to do.
-TJFs: fine and strategic, maybe abusive, idk that's for y'all to settle.
-Triggers/Contingent Standards: abusive but can be funny
-Skep: mixed feelings, seems lazy in terms of debate application, read unique skep args plz. Skep aff’s are always welcome btw.
-Impact justified fwrks: are awful and hurt my feelings, this won’t hurt your speaks or change my evaluation if it's not an issue brought up by the debaters in the round
Theory- I understand theory for it's strategic purpose. I don’t default on any paradigm issue, they should be in round, things like spirit v text of interp obviously don’t matter if no semantic I-meets are made. Also, I’m fine if counter-interp txt is just “I’ll defend the violation” or “converse / inverse of their interp”. I will never “gut check” against theory args. The "frivolous" nature of shells is determined in round.
-Interps: don’t repeat while extending, I got it the first time, just say “extend the interp”. You should flash this / type it out at a minimum. Don’t be too lengthy or too short. Positively / Negatively worded interp as metatheory makes no sense to me - still will vote on it though.
-offensive counter-interps: just read it a new off / meta-theory shell, calling it an offensive counter-interp seems like you’re just trying to get an RVI when you don’t need one to begin with.
-spikes: are great and some are probably a bit necessary depending on the flavor of the aff. I’m totally fine with hearing a 5 min UV with generic pre-empts and your speaks won’t suffer, you do you.
-disclosure: My opinions don’t matter in round, I’ll vote on disclosure happily if you won it but won’t like cap speaks or vote someone down solely for not disclosing if it’s not mentioned in-round.
K’s- where some of the best debates happen, nothing is cooler than an amazing 2nr collapse, but be slightly original please.
-Performance: they’re fine, make it clear whether or not the act of performance is pre-fiat offense for you.
-Literature: not going to list what I’ve read or authors I like, if you have a concern just ask before the round. My familiarity with any lit base has no influence on my decision. If an understandable claim is conceded that has a complex warrant, an absurdly long explanation isnt necessary.
-K’s v/of Framework: probably slightly abusive possibly but eh who cares, I'll default to the ROTB and standard/value criterion being on the same layer - if Kant is evil in it's application (w/o any like Teehan weighing) but it's true in determining what is ethical then that doesn't matter. Preclusion / Hijack claims make sense in this debate.
-“Going Right”: is maybe not as strategic but equally compelling, read theory to not engage if you want too, or even better, do both.
LARP- plans are cool, soft-left aff’s are dominating right now but that doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy a good extinction impact. I've done a decent bit of LARPing (reading a burner aff, crazy strategic) but rarely against a larp debater so not sure how I would be at resolving a pure Adv CP v. plan strat. But I've been in these rounds and babe some experience, it probably won't be an issue.
Misc- sit, stand, lay on the floor or levitate, idc as long as I can hear you clearly. Flashing isn’t prep time but if everyone in round wants it to be then it’s up to y’all. Embedded clash doesn’t exist unless made explicit or it’s your opponents lack of signposting / messiness was the cause of why an argument would need to be evaluated with embedded clash. If there's anything I didn't explicitly mention, just ask.