Lyons,+Tyler


 * __ XP __** : 3 years policy in Texas, competed both statewide and regionally, UIL, TFA and NFL. Currently the head policy coach at Desert Vista HS.


 * __ General thoughts: __**

I believe debate is a game between two opponents that must be respected and respectful of the debate space. Ultimately, rules have been constructed to maximize discussion. Break those rules, tear them down and erode the foundations for all I care. That being said, you aren’t Michigan KM, and I expect that if you read **ANYTHING** from them you’d better know what you’re doing.

Tech over truth in most cases. Don’t get up and read me some BS that is obviously not true, and I’m not going to vote neg if they happen to win one irrelevant on case card.

__ Case: __ Do it. Obviously if you can do a full takeout on any of the stock issues I’ll be voting neg. Specifics: don’t attack only one solvency contention and be shocked when I vote aff because they kicked it; your inherency takeout must make clear sense; any harms takeouts must be explained and weighed during rebuttals; and for the love of God give me some impact calc!

__ T: __ Must have: interpretation, violation, standards/grounds, and voters. Aff must have: counter interpretation, standards/grounds, and voters. If these aren’t present for either team I will not flow the argument for them. This also applies to framework because of similar structure. If you’re vague, I will vote you down immediately. You’re not being cool by being dodgy.

__ CP: __ It would do you credit to understand the relationship of your Counter Plan to your other arguments. You get brownie points for solving your DAs or Ks (the ones without alts, that’s a whole other discussion) with a well oriented Counter Plan. That being said, the perm debate here really matters. I expect a good switch-side debate, so be prepared to argue the merits of your links and solvency.

PICs are fair game, but your solvency needs to be well fleshed out. I tend to flow aff in perm debates here because the neg usually doesn’t spend enough qualitative time on it.

__ DA: __ I find that most of these arguments are easily proven to be non-unique. That’s just the nature of most DAs. Too many neg debaters get sloppy in the link debate and focus on their impacts. I hate general DAs, they’re often too easily turned and super boring. The more specific the better.

__ K: __ This should be obvious: know your stuff! If you can’t explain any portion of your K in CX, you shouldn’t be running it. Link debate, root cause and real solvency alts are crucial for my ballot. Aff: perm debates are common enough that you don’t have to do a whole lot of work in finding evidence. In lieu of that, I expect you to weigh the round for me in terms of solvency.

__ Theory/Framework: __ Slow down and take your time with this. I will not listen to a spreaded theory argument, it does no good for anyone if you’re moving too fast. If I can’t understand what you’re trying to run, I won’t bother flowing it. A note on framework: Most of your prescripted blocks should have some advocacy, it’s there for a reason. Don’t give me any and chances are I’m going to completely ignore your argument.

__ Speed: __ If you mumble at any point, I will stop flowing. Speak clearly and concisely at whatever speed you feel like.

__ CX: __ This is not a part of the debate to be ignored. CX is an art form, one that you will use in life far, far more than what you learn by performing your 1AC or the 2NR. That being said, I will flow CX and mark when arguments are made. Nearly all your speaker points will be decided based on CX.

**__ LD __**

Sometimes I have to judge LD rounds. My prefs are simple: do whatever you want. Root cause debates are awesome, I like hearing how your contentions clash. Be as progressive as possible, I’m used to hearing way, way more progressive stuff in policy. I’m a policy coach and only competed in a few rounds like 6 years ago in LD, so what I know is mostly from judging rounds.