Peltekci,+Tyler

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

Debate is a game about research, if you do none, I'm likely not the judge you want in the back..

Yes, send me the speech docs as well. Have a subject which includes both the round, and the tournament if you want to be off to a great start — 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.

I now attend Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles and study Philosophy and Computer Science.

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


 * CONTENT** - tldr; there is a tldr next to every single argument type in case you’re in a rush, don’t care enough to read this entirely, or just don’t need anything more than a confirmation - just control+f “tldr” and make your way down.


 * Preface -** tldr**;** you should only worry about my argument preferences if you are bad at debate, and i like good cards..

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.

Below are my argumentative preferences, but perhaps 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 my thoughts:**


 * Topicality** - tldr; yes please :)

I love it 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

"sh*t ain't T!" - Matt McFadden "sometimes, T **IS** the strategy" - Christian Rodriguez


 * Framework/"T-USFG"** - tldr; just debate this argument well and I will likely be persuaded..

In front of me, this is likely all that should be in the 1nc in a debate vs an AFF team that did not defend the resolution, in my experience, going for a Kritik (against non-plan affs in HS) is basically 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 in front of me is by not comparing at the internal link level, and allowing the AFF team to get away with incredibly outlandish internal link claims that make your offense irrelevant..


 * Kritiks** - tldr; make an argument please — IR literature with well-explained links/turns case args: yes, meme/classic K cards: why, state always bad: no thank you

Not my favorite type of argument, but incredibly strategic in some debates...

Here are my thoughts on going for the K on the neg: - 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 - new sheet for overview, only if you hate me, and debate...

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,
 * AFF against the K** - tldr; defend your aff, and impact turn every word they say
 * **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 unless you really know what you're talking about, emphasize: __**REALLY**__

My threshold is quite simply that your 1AC should include logical premises and a conclusion which is supported by those premises.


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

If your K Aff doesn’t answer these three simple questions:


 * 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?

Then I probably do not want to hear it, and **you are running an extremely large risk of losing on presumption if the neg can point to the right flaws**..


 * Counterplans** - tldr; love em, tech is huge

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 👎👎

States is probably fire on this education topic... Cut cards..


 * 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), the strategic value of impact turns are immense for the negative and I feel like **more teams should** do the research to **go for these,** or at least read them more frequently in 1nc’s.

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

--- some favorites in the policy spectrum: China War Good (+0.2pts if you win on this in front of me and your cards are both new and good), Red Spread (make them prove Russia isn’t the USSR, why not?), Dedev (+0.1pts if you win on this in front of me), Water Wars Good, IPR Bad, Multilat Bad, International Law Bad

--- some favorites in the k spectrum: Capitalism good, Hegemony good, Technology 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 in front of me, I’m game for everything, but be honest with yourself as to whether or not you can convince me a vague alternative in the 1nc is a reason to vote aff, even if the objection wasn’t answered…

I’ll lean NEG on PICs, International, States, and mechanism CP's I’ll lean AFF on Process, Agent, Consult, Conditions, or Delay CP’s
 * Predispositions:**

As a debater I always recognized when I needed to go for theory in the 2AR, and I think that is a skill everyone should learn, so people can stop winning on “tell Australia to let china know that we want to do the plan” or “NATO might get upset if we don’t tell them first, so lets do that”, but again, people hate line by line, and no one likes to just strap up and go for theory.. So you’re probably in a good spot with your Q-subpointed Jonah Jacobs level AT: PDCP block


 * Notes:**

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..
 * Tech over Truth, always**-- if you go for truth over tech, i will evaluate the opposite --

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


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


 * being aff**
 * 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


 * being neg**
 * 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...

I understand the utility of the "give me a line" question, but it is basically asking the other team to waste your cx time.. If you get visibly mad/heated over something insignificant during a HS debate cross-ex, please don't get more visibly mad/heated when/if I laugh.. I see no reason to show mercy during a 1nc cx after hearing a 2 card DA with no link... Call someone out pls
 * cross-ex** - have fun during these, but get the information you need to get when you're asking questions, and answer questions when you're being asked them.


 * E-Mail Chain** - pocketbox should not exist

My thoughts about debate align very closely with Matthew McFadden, whom I was partners with for all 4 years of my career, see his philosophy if this wasn't enough - http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/McFadden%2C+Matthew

Questions: tyler.peltekci@gmail.com