Levy,+Tyler

I debated for Colleyville Heritage in both LD and CX from 2003 to 2007 locally and nationally. I helped coach the team during college and law school, but have been out of the debate world for about 2 years. That being said, I thought it was time to update my LD paradigm. Please feel free to clarify and ask me questions about my judge philosophy before the round starts.

My LD paradigm:

1) Speed: I'm ok with speed as long as it's clear. I don't think you'll go too fast for me, but in the event you are, I won't be flowing. If I say "clear," don't take it personally. Please note that speed does not entitle you to make blippy, one sentence, underdeveloped arguments. Even if they are dropped by your opponent, I still need a story behind the argument.

2) Kritiks, theory, off-case, etc.: My tolerance for nonsensical kritiks and other nonsense philosophy based arguments has substantially diminished. Please, feel free to run these arguments in front of me, but if they make no sense/have no application/are completely theoretical, I probably won't like it.

Special comments about kritiks: Note, however, that kritiks based on Foucault, Agamben, Derrida, gender language, anthropocentrism, etc., are not the crazy, nonsensical arguments I'm talking about. I really mean Zizek and beyond. I still have no idea what the Real is, and I doubt you can explain it to me. Generally, I think a kritik should have an alternative. Otherwise, it's really just a turn. If the kritik has no alternative, I look at the impacts/link to value structure (or however you tell me to view the round, see below).

Special comments about theory: I think theory is a completely acceptable thing to run, if run properly, and it's often merited. If you want me to pull the trigger on theory, I expect to see some in-round abuse. Competing interpretations are ideal. Your theory arguments should link to some voter (as in education, fairness, competitive equity). If someone runs a burden case, I'm very open to hearing why mutual burdens are required/theory as to why I should or should not look to a burden structure. Discourse arguments are fine, and I have voted on them before. If you run an RVI on your opponent for reading theory against you, and your opponent has a good-faith reason to run theory against you (as in, not a time suck), the likeliness of me voting on your RVI is slim to none.

3) How I view the round: I'll view the round however you tell me to view it. By default, I look to the standards set up in the framework of the case (though you can definitely run a case with no standard in front of me, as long as there is some weighing mechanism). In any event, you need to tell me where to vote, how to vote, how to adjudicate the round, and why if you urge me to look at the round from a nonstandards point of view. In speeches, you need to __**extend the entire argument, meaning claim, warrant and impact**__. If you just extend the author of the card, I will view it as a meaningless argument and will not extend analysis for you.

4) On average, I give 28 speaker points. If you are rude, unclear, or not understandable, expect to receive below 26. That being said, I do give out 30s and will gladly reward intelligent, clear debaters.

General rules: THERE MUST BE CLASH! Use the flow--I do, you should too. Line-by-line is necessary for clarity. I'm one of the easiest judges to read. If you want to know whether or not I understand something, look to see if I'm flowing. If not, I'll probably just be staring blankly at you. If my pen is waving to move on, then move on. Just make sure I'm following you, and you'll be fine.