Cook,+Tyler+W

**Debate** **experience**- 4 years of debate, 2 high school (congressional), 2 college (policy) **Judge experience**- First year judging **Initially**- I want you to just do your thing if you have me in the back of the room. I will weigh all arguments evenly. I am a rather fair judge, I don’t lean critical and I don’t vote pure policy. I vote on the best arguement, period. That being said, take it easy, debate is a game that requires good sportsmanship to be enjoyable. Also I, unlike many college judges and probably high school judges, enjoy judging rounds and will actively flow all of your arguments. I am also not a judge that takes the easy route out when judging. If you drop an argument that should be answered, but the other team doesn’t argue it well, I am going to try to see if there are other areas to vote on. It always sucks to lose on a dropped argument, so I want to keep those types of rfds to a minimum. **Policy-** I don’t really know this years policy topic too great. I live on the east coast (Virginia) and I teach debate theory every now and then to the high school team at Liberty Christian Academy. I know the topic is Infrastructure, I know what that is, and thats about it. Your job is to articulate your arguments well so I learn your topic. That means you probably should not use acronyms or technical jargon. Other than that I love policy, CPs, DAs, Case, the whole lot **Theory-**ASPEC, SPEC, Condo, T, on theory debate, I understand it really well. I personally tend to debate more about the scholarship of the round than actually the facts in the round. So Theory is a good argument in front of me. If you drop basic theory, I will vote on it (probably). Just don’t drop it! You can answer it as poorly as you choose, just don’t drop it! Now critical theory is a different matter, Probably won’t vote for the K on the grounds of theory. T... is a voter if the aff is not topical. That does not mean that you will lose if you run an untopical aff in front of me, most neg teams are rather bad at arguing T, so that off topic aff? Go for it. **K debate-** I understand Heidegger, Neoliberalism, Capitalism, Feminism, Whiteness, Anti-Blackness, Peace, Positivism, Representation Ks, Queer Theory, and Bataille quite well. I am at a lose with Badiou, Lanza, Zizek, Frieri, Critical Pedagogy, Epistemology Ks. I will vote on the K but not on a “crazy K”. You must articulate it well, have a clear alt, and really present why I as a judge should drastically change my ontology and side with the K. I don’t really vote on K theory, unless it is not answered. **In Finality-** I KNOW Policy so I will vote for policy, but I LOVE learning more about philosophy and the K arguments so I will vote K. What this means is you have a pretty level judge in the back so no worries! Speaker Points- ( A general guideline): <25: Something went desperately wrong. You did something obnoxiously offensive. 25: You were completely non-responsive to the arguments in the debate. 26: You made assertions with some clash without telling me why they're true. 27: You did spectacularly average. 28: You are better than average but there were some minor details that need to be fixed. 28.5: You are doing well and I appreciate your strategy. 29: I think you are on the right track to go deep into the tournaments. 29.5: You are extremely articulate and maybe one of the best debaters at the tournament. 30: You made risky strategic decisions that paid off and are one of the best debaters at the tournament.
 * Name**- Tyler W. Cook