Bettilyon,+Tyler

Tyler Bettilyon Asst. Coach Highland High School (Salt Lake City, UT)

In general - you should tell me what the rules of debate are, I'm willing to let you run the round, in absence of a FW I'll default to a combination of reps/policy making forged by my personal experiences in debate. I will call for evidence in very few cases. Do not ask me to read your "great" card and then fail to explain what is so great about it. I will always value what is on my flow much higher then what your author says in the card that you did not appropriately explain.

T - I'm willing to vote negative on T, and genuinely enjoy a good T debate. I don't think my threshold on this argument is particularly high, but for a neg to win T there are a few things that are important to me:

1. I will probably call for your original violation but please explain it well, and consistently. If I don't understand it based on your explanation I won't vote on it and if I think it has changed you probably won't win. 2. The standards debate should be fairly flushed out, I'd like to have a grasp on why the aff's violation of your interpretation is bad (in whatever context you choose). 3. I'll call for the plan text more often then not when resolving T. 4. specific abuse is not a must have for me; if you can prove that your interpretation of the round is good for debate and the way the aff violates it is bad for debate you can win the T debate.

These things combined make a general truth for me: the 2NR should be T, or some other combination of flows, not T and some other combination of flows. It should take a good 4 minutes to explain reasonably your violation and standards in a way that makes good sense. This gives you time for a defense of theory or why T outweighs theory, but not enough to have a good CP/DA or K debate. Under unusual circumstances this might not be true, but if you go for T I'd like to see you really go for T.

D/A's - It is easier to win 100% defense in front of me then most judges. I'm much also more inclined to vote for the true defense then the risk-of-an-impact arguments. This doesn't mean you can't win a risk of your DA but it does mean that risk has to be significant for me to give significant weight to your impact. Don't expect a .001% risk of a nuclear war to outweigh systemic impacts simply by the nature of nuclear war. Having a clear internal link story is important to me.

Case - Similar to my feelings on D/A's it is easier to win no solvency arguments in front of me then many judges. Its important to me that there is at least some shadow extension of the case in the 2AC if you want to get full weight of it in later speeches. Don't expect to get a reasonable amount of weight in the 2AR on a magically resurrected advantage. You took your time writing a good 1AC for a reason; utilize it early and often.

C/P - Winning the net benefit is similar to winning your solvency or your D/A in terms of defensive arguments. Perms are a viable round winner for me I find voting on them easier in light of my willingness to grant absolute defense on the net benefit, however the aff will still need to be ahead on the question of solvency for this to be an easy decision. I default to test of competition rather than advocacy. Specific comparisons about the world of the counter plan versus the world of the aff plan and the world of the perm are pretty important to me in deciding what weight to give where, be detailed when discussing these worlds and their differences.

K's - I tend to buy the representations F/W arguments, but winning reasons why the plan is good is often a reason why your representations of it are also probably good. Its critical for me that I understand the argument before I vote on it(true of all arguments really). I've read a fair amount of critical literature but do not assume I have a firm grasp on the ideas of your authors as I will try very hard not to do work for you, even if I have read the literature of your particular K. If your alt represents a specific action within the world of fiat then comparisons of this action to the world of the plan are very important to me; if your alt is not a specific action then a discussion of how the alternative avoids the problems the K presents as well as in what way it should interact with the 1AC is important.

Theory - I'm fairly willing to vote on theory; if you genuinely believe your ability to debate is being hurt by decisions the other team has made you can probably win on theory in front of me. You should have an interpretation on theory, and explain in more story terms whats wrong with the action of the other team. Your 13 point block is not particularly persuasive, consolidate your arguments into a fine tuned story about the other teams theoretical problems. I have recently (2010-2011 season) thought that negatives are getting away with murder on the multiple conditional worlds with a performative contradiction.

Finally - if you're trying to decide to strike me at MBA please do; the hospitality room is fantastic and I have no problem spending the entirety of the tournament there. Pretty pretty pleaese.