Tyler+Peltekci

Damien HS 2017 | Loyola Marymount 2021 Alterego787
 * Tyler Peltekci**

Debate is a game about research. Send me the speech docs as well please — tyler.peltekci@gmail.com

I debated with Matt McFadden from 2013-2017 (Latin America thru China) at Damien HS in Southern California.

I had some competitive success in debate if that matters to you, qualified to the ToC both junior and senior year, was the 2nd seed my senior year, and finished in quarterfinals (5th place). Also won 2nd place at St. Marks, 1st place at Golden Desert, 6 ToC bids and was in the elimination debates of every major tournament.

There are TLDR's if you're in a rush

Fast and technical debating between two well-prepared opponents is my ideal.

I will always reward a well-researched strategy -- but execution is **JUST AS IMPORTANT** as evidence.

My favorite debates to **participate in** were the ones where BOTH sides had the cards to throw down, so I’d imagine my favorite debates to **JUDGE**, would be the same.

My biggest preference, is that you go for what you are the most **PREPARED** to go for, and what you have done the most **RESEARCH** to support..

I understand my role as judge is not to be dogmatic, and I won’t vote against an argument on ideology. I’ll remain objective when evaluating debates, and my judge philosophy reflects my argumentative preferences, not any sort of dogma.

**That being said, here are some preferences and thoughts:**

__**Topicality**__ - TLDR: Yes

Love when a team recognizes that topicality is the best strategy against a certain team/affirmative, and does the research to execute it.

EVIDENCE MATTERS, reasonability is almost never a round-winning argument, we meet is a yes/no question, the most persuasive impact arguments are ones concerned with gaining expertise from debates and predictability,

I’m not the judge with pre-determinations about all these small things that a lot of people in debate talk/argue about, that being said - fairness **can be** an impact, and **it can also be** an internal link, my advice is you make it whatever is most likely to win you the debate

I love when the AFF reads something questionably topical but just out-techs neg teams going for T, or when they just have the bag ready to be thrown on "we meet" and read a plan that doesn’t actually do anything.. #BTC

__**Framework/"T-USFG"**__ - TLDR: Just debate this argument well and I will likely be persuaded..

Likely all that should be in the 1nc in a debate vs an AFF team that did not defend the resolution, going for a Kritik (against non-plan affs in HS) is almost asking to lose to a permutation, unless it's very specific/well-researched, or you’re winning some reason why permutations shouldn’t be allowed.

I will lean very heavily neg in Framework debates.

The way you deploy a framework strategy should probably change depending on what type of affirmative you’re debating; I’m equally persuaded by the impact arguments related to engaging in institutions/gaining skills as I am by arguments related to debate as a game and fairness/truth testing, so I’m game for whatever, just debate well and make sure you think strategy when deciding what 1nc to read…

The way you lose going for framework is by not comparing at the internal link level, and allowing the AFF team to get away with incredibly outlandish claims that make your offense irrelevant..

__**Kritiks**__ - TLDR: As long as the argument follows...

Not my favorite type of argument, but it's difficult to deny its strategic utility in debate...

Thoughts: - specific links, yes - reason why the plan is bad, yes - link of omission, no - death k, save it for McFadden - state is always bad, big no - turns case, yes - framework, do more than read a roleplaying bad card and hope they drop it

__**AFF against the K**__ - TLDR: defend your aff, and impact turn every word they say You have an aff, forgetting about the 1ac is how you lose this debate… - weighing your aff is important, not doing that would be bad - impact turn, yes - util, yes - impact defense to their impacts, yes - link thresholds, yes - perm, why do this when statistics prove hegemony is good - going “soft left”, this can be very smart against certain K 1NC’s - think strategy - alt answers, less important in front of me because impact turns make it somewhat irrelevant,
 * **but if you’re not impact turning** and you’re letting them get away with the assertion that a “reorientation” or whatever solves their links and the aff, you’re going to be in a tough spot debate wise…
 * you also don’t NEED cards to answer the alternative, smart arguments go a long way against the 80% of High School K 1nc’s that literally don’t make a cogent argument.

__**Kritikal AFFs**__ - TLDR: Uphill Battle

My threshold is quite simply that your 1AC should include logical premises and some form of conclusion which follows them.

**Presumption against planless affs is both persuasive, and underutilized.**

3 questions your K AFF should answer:
 * 1) How does voting aff solve your role of the ballot?
 * 2) If you read impacts about things happening outside of debate, how does voting aff solve those impacts? and if you read impacts about debate, how does voting aff solve those impacts?
 * 3) Why can’t I vote negative to preserve a model of debate, but still agree with everything the 1ac says and just assign you the loss?

__**Counterplans**__ - TLDR: yes, being extra technical in these debates can only benefit you

PICs were my favorite strategy to cut/research and my 2nd favorite strategy to execute. Process CP’s are cool if you do it right, and have the technical proficiency to win competition/theory debates..

Actually competitive CP’s that don’t do the aff/use a different mechanism usually need good solvency evidence, the more comparative the better (obviously a high standard, but we’re talking ideals here).

The aff should be going for PDCP/Theory in most of these process CP debates, but do it right (answer the theory block)..

You don't need solvency advocates or cards for smart and intuitive advantage CP’s, and 2nc CP’s out of add-ons.

judge kick is sooooo 👎👎

**__DA's__ -** TLDR: yes please, but I have no trouble assigning zero risk if you want to read something incoherent against a smart 2A (make an argument please)…

Link usually controls the direction (but I understand the need to go for UQ controls direction), generic/topic DA's are great when you have a specific link argument, politics+case is **ALWAYS** the move! If you’re e-sub-pointing turns case warrants for every internal link, you’re debating DA’s the right way…

If you don't have a DA, you don't have a DA... 1% risk analysis isn't the substitute for a link...

**__Impact Turns__ -** TLDR: my favorite type of argument in debate — if you think a team can’t defend that a war between the US and China would be a bad thing, why not exploit that? :)

Evidence quality, and comparison of that evidence is **HUGE** in these debates and **the more well-researched team typically wins**.

prolif good is defense (except for bioweapons tradeoff)

impact turn k affs when you can, and go for it if you're winning..

Do more line by line than usual in these debates

--- some personal favorites: China War Good (+0.2pts if you win), Red Spread, Dedev (+0.1pts if you win), Water Wars Good, IPR Bad, Multilat Bad, I-LAW Bad, Cap good, Tech good, Hegemony good

**Theory -** TLDR: do line by line, 2nr/2ar offense defense paradigm framing and impact comparison/turns case warrants will win you these debates..

In terms of biases/which way I “lean” in theory debates — I have no bias strong enough to inform you not to go for a certain argument, just be honest with yourself over your ability to credibly persuade someone that a vague alternative is a reason to vote aff, and so on.

**Notes:** **Tech over Truth, always**-- if you go for truth over tech, i will evaluate the opposite -- consider the following: 1 - you had to technically win that I should evaluate truth before tech.. So tech comes before truth inevitably 2 - truthfully, it shouldn't come first in debate..

**Rewarding good research** - if your cards are fire, or just better than the other teams, let me know: if you accurately sell your cards, higher speaks. if you over-sell them, lower speaks.

**Execution matters just as much as evidence** - telling me to read your cards is **NOT** **ENOUGH**, you need to make an argument.

**being aff** **being neg**
 * if you give a bad 2ac on case, I’m not going to let the 1AR pretend like that didn’t happen if the neg points it out, and THEY SHOULD
 * idk why you’re scared to straight turn a DA, test their link file (assuming you have a link turn file)...
 * the first 30-45 seconds of the 2ar should write my ballot
 * be strategic
 * just read your best offense and get ready to throw down and you will make me happy, but you're not here to make me happy, you're here to win, so if you need to read T-with, do it
 * 1 OFF DA = +0.3pts if you win
 * 1 OFF PIC = +0.3pts if you win
 * heg bad; you’re bad
 * you never have “nothing” to the point where you have to read time cube, consult Ashtar, or any of that other noise -- yes it's funny, but you might lose when you could have gone for politics or the death k and won...

See Matt McFadden if this philosophy if this wasn't enough, I understand debate similar to how he does - http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/McFadden%2C+Matthew