Engler,+Tyler


 * Tyler Engler**
 * Lexington 2011**
 * Georgetown 2015**

-Nearly everything in my philosophy is tentative. I will try to evaluate every debate that I judge based on who I think debates better, regardless of my predispositions. My predispositions towards the activity are up for debate and can be overcome with superior argumentation. However, there are a few things that you cannot change my mind about: -Don't assume that I know as much about your argument as you do. This applies equally to critical arguments as it does to policy arguments. This also means that you should try to avoid obscure abbreviations or acronyms. At the very least explain what they mean. -Clarity is very important. Debate is a communication activity and if I don't get your argument then I won't vote for you and you will lose speaker points. It is your burden to be clear and I will yell clear if you are not. -Do not let my predispositions radically alter the way that you debate. Go for what you are good at and if you win I will vote for you regardless of my beliefs. -That also means that I will generally evaluate tech over truth. If an argument is stupid you should be able to beat it. However, if you drop an important argument then you will most likely lose. -Evidence comparison is important for resolving competing claims in the debate and is important to control the framing through which I read your cards after the round. -Good Cross-X is great. Referencing it in your speech is even better
 * __Top Level Issues__**
 * You cannot cheat (ex. Clip Cards). If you do, I have no problem automatically dropping you and giving out zero speaker points.
 * Claims without substance not arguments. Until they become arguments I will give the other team substantial leeway in blowing them off and answering them when they become arguments.
 * The structure of the debate (speech times, etc)
 * Be at least respectful of your opponents, partner and the judge. I understand that this is a competitive activity, but I have no patience for excessive antagonism

Performance – I’m pretty good for the neg on framework, but negative teams often advance standards that are easily impact turned – e.g. limits, policy education, etc. – one way the 2n can hedge his or her bets is to extend impact defense to the case

Stuff you shouldn’t drop no matter what – value to life, turns case, role of the ballot

__**Specific Arguments**__ __Topicality__: A voting issue barring a serious error by the negative. I will default to competing interpretations, but am very amenable to a strong reasonability argument. The neg has to prove that their vision of the topic is better than the affirmative's. In round abuse is not important. Comparative impact calculus between opposing standards is vital, but greatly underutilized in most high school T debates.

__Counterplans/Theory__: -I assume that theory arguments, other than conditionality, are reasons to reject the argument not the team. You can convince me otherwise but you must overcome my defaults. -2 Condo is probably fine, 3 is pushing it, and 4 is probably not. -I am relatively aff leaning on CP theory/competition arguments since I do not think that the aff should have to defend normal means, immediacy, or certainty. This means that consult, other CPs that result in the whole aff, international fiat, 50 state fiat, and most janky process CPs are probably not competitive. -I also probably lean aff on Word PICs unless they have advanced a reason why discourse is important. -I tend to lean neg on PICs Bad and Agent CPs theory (but aff on competition if they say USFG in the plan) -I am very amenable to the aff going for intrinsicness, but nobody goes for it well.

__Kritiks__: I am probably not your best judge for the K, but you should still go for it if that is what you're best at. The more specific your argument is to the aff, the better. If you do not engage the aff then you will probably lose. I have found that extending impact defense or other case arguments is extremely helpful for the neg. The neg should utilize arguments such as value to life, turns case, role of the ballot. They are devastating when dropped and win a lot of debates. The aff must answer these arguments. Framework arguments are generally unconvincing. You should be ready to defend your reps and methodology. However if the neg says that something - such as ontology - comes first, this means that if the neg wins that the affs ontology is bad then I vote neg. It does not mean that I automatically vote neg.

__Performance/No Plan Affs__: Similar to the K, I am probably not your best judge. But that doesn't mean I will discount your argument or dock your speaker points. Your argument should probably be relevant to the topic. The more relevant you are, the easier it will be for you to beat framework. However I will vote for which option I think is best. This does not necessarily mean that I am a policymaker in the USFG.