Sullivan,+Tyler

I debated for Salado High School (outside of Austin, TX) for four years, and competed at the TOC, TFA State, and UIL State. This year, 2012-2013, is my second year judging.

//**Updated Jan/Feb 2015**//

I'll vote for any argument that is justified and explained as a reason to vote for you. This position entails that I'll vote for arguments I don't particularly care for, or arguments that I wouldn't normally find compelling. Additionally, I won't tank speaks if I dislike your position. Don't worry that your position/strategy won't appeal to me; I want to see you do what you do best or enjoy the most. Speaks therefore matter to me only relative to the goals you've set for yourself. I try my best to reduce my biases and to intervene as infrequently as possible.

Couple things to note:

1. Speed: You may read as quickly as you like **BUT** please slow down on theory/analytics. Any argument that is sufficiently justified should be flowable. In other words, if I'm only getting parts of your arguments down, it's (in my experience) almost always because they need to more fully fleshed out.

2. Theory: Perfectly fine. I don't really care whether or not you need to run it, your strategy is your strategy. I prefer it when arguments extend beyond just "and no AFF RVI's because of the time skew." Spending time on a few crucial theory arguments rather than a hundred blips will serve you well.

3. Extensions: I'm quite picky regarding extensions. I think a lot of the time debaters get away with far too incomplete extensions. I will not vote on one-sentence extensions, even if the argument has gone entirely conceded. //I've noticed a general decrease in the quality of extensions lately, so I've been forced to lower my standards for arguments I'll vote on. Just keep in mind that I think a well-developed extension is a wonderful thing.//

Random things you might want to know:

-I will vote for disclosure theory if won.

-I won't gut-check against supposedly "morally offensive" arguments. If an argument is morally offensive to you, demonstrate its falsity or tell me why, for example, skeptical philosophy is responsible for real life harms. But, don't simply assert the opposite of the skeptical argument in an outraged tone.

-I will evaluate (and oftentimes enjoy) pre-fiat and role of the ballot debates.

-I'll evaluate defensive arguments/impact turns/critiques against theory voters.

Speaks:

-Anything to reduce the interminable exchange of flash-drives/cases would be appreciated.

-I don't mind intense debates, so long as they remain respectful. On the other hand, silly debates are fine by me as well.

Any other questions, please ask.