Hochman,Tyler

I debated for Brentwood in Los Angeles for four years in high school, and am currently a Brentwood School Student.

Quick Version: I can handle any argument. I am particularly good at evaluating theory and framework debates but I will listen to anything.

Longer Version:

Speed: I'll be honest, I am not the best at flowing, and I am probably slightly better now on a laptop, but not by much. If you go your top speed, I probably won't catch it all. So if you have to go fast, make it 75-80%. I recognize that you might be clear but still too fast for me, so I'll call clear or slow once in the round before I stop flowing. People who go slow and still manage to dominate the round will be rewarded with high speaks, for they will have demonstrated impressive efficiency.

Types of Arguments I am okay with you running any and all arguments that you choose, it is, after all your activity. That said, I do have a few preferences:

Stock arguments I like these. I did not run a lot of these in high school but I appreciate a good stock debate.

Policy-style arguments I also like the plan/cp/da debate, but if we get super into the nitty-gritty of how the plan affects the DA affects the competition of the CP, you might lose me. Just be careful Also, a good politics DA will make me super excited.

Philo/Skep/K's/Other stuff I am pretty well versed in most of these arguments. I was a framework debater in high school so I appreciate a good philosophical clash. People had labeled theoretical arguments in the framework or other stuff like that as "tricky" or "sketchy" but to me it just adds another layer to the debate round which I will evaluate.

Spike I ran spikes when I was a debater. If you use an excessive amount of spikes where I think the debate has become pointless because by solely being your opponent a spike will be triggered, I may be a little unhappy. That being said, I think spikes can be used effectively and strategically which I do enjoy.

Theory I debate a lot of theory. Run theory as much as you want. If there is not real abuse then I will be a little mad. That being said, my threshold for real abuse is probably lower than most judges because I do think of theory strategically.

CX Be dominant and interesting, and I will take notice.

Extensions I generally require a claim warrant impact threshold to grant an extension, with the exception of the 1AR. For 1ARs, I just need the author/argument and a brief re-explanation so I know that I am looking at the right thing. I won't fill it in for you afterwards. NRs have no excuse for not developing extensions thoroughly enough.

Crystallization I generally view crystallization as a lost art, so if you tell a great story at the end of your last speech, you will get higher speaks than you otherwise would, and certainly have a better chance of winning the round. If I am tired, lost and confused, the person who gives me the easiest and simplest way out of the round will probably win.

High Speaks If you manage to work into your speech the names Jared Paul, Jackson Lallas and Ricah Mosen in a clever way, I will be happy, hit you with a finger point, and probably give you high speaks.