Gutzman,+Tyler

Background: I debated Policy for 4 years for Vermillion High School in South Dakota, qualified to NFLS Junior and Senior Year and placed 10th in the nation Junior year. In high school, I did some travelling and we broke at a few TOC bid tournaments. I graduated High School in 2010, and have judged and coached teams every year with the exception of one. General Paradigm: In general, I ascribe to the offense/defense paradigm who will do his best to evaluate the arguments as they are presented in the round. But since no one can be a truly blank slate here are my opinions/experience with various arguments.  Topicality: Topicality was my bane in High School. I could never win on it on the neg, and it was our biggest weakness on the aff. With that said, I probably have a fairly high threshold on T. That doesn't mean I won't vote on it, just that you have to be winning it fairly substantially. I do enjoy a good T debate though. Theory: I enjoyed theory debate and think it can be a legitimate 2AR/2NR strategy. However, if you're going to go for theory as a voter, go for theory, and theory alone. I feel it puts you at a strategic disadvantage to try and win in both a policy realm and a theoretical objection framework. As a slight Caveat with both T and Theory, while I am ok with speed in general, I would ask that you slow down a little bit on the T/Theory flows. After all, if it isn't on my flow its not going to help you win the round, so make sure it gets there. I have started recording rounds and relistening to parts that I think i may have missed things on, but if I don't have to do that you'll get extra brownie points, and probably a speaker point bump as well. DA's and on case debate were my bread and butter in high school. I love good impact calc and comparison. Politics +CP or Case was probably my most common 2NR in HS. CPs: Obviously I'm ok with these from above. I will listen to any CP theory either way. If you want to run multiple conditional CPs, be prepared to win Condo good. If you're on the Aff and want to run Topical CPs bad, I'll listen. Again, just do what you're good at. On Case: Over the years in High School I feel like the case was an underdebated issue. DA+Case mitigation can be a great 2NR. Lately this has come back with teams mitigating case impacts more and more and its a trend I'm entirely onboard with. With regards to the stock issues I'll vote on them if you give me a reason.  Kritiks: i have no problem with listening to Kritiks, but they were never my strong suit. That doesn't mean I won't listen to them, it just means you'll have to explain it to me. My background in the critical literature isn't as extensive as some of your other judges, so explain the things you might assume I know. I feel they can be a great strategic tool and if its what you do, by all means run it. Other minor issues: I'm generally ok with tag team cross-x, but don't overdo it. It makes your partner look bad if you don't let them answer when they know it. However, there are times its appropriate, use your judgement. Any questions? Feel free to ask.