Cook,+Tyler

====I have no preference for any particular style of debate - be it "traditional" or "progressive." I don't have a preference for empirics or philosophy, nor do I have a preference for any particular school of philosophy. I don't care if you use policy concepts in LD - like plans, counterplans, disads, etc. I consider myself as tab as one can be (of course every judge has //some// preferences). ====

**Paradigm/Orals:** I will always try to give an oral RFD after the round. Likewise, if you have any questions before the round, you should ask.
====**Speed:** I will say clear once or twice. I will never vote down a debater for going too fast but A) I won't vote for an argument I don't understand and B) you will lose speaks for being unclear. ==== ====**Theory:** I will always evaluate theory, no matter how it's used, but I am most persuaded when debaters can prove real in-round abuse. Thus I lean slightly more to reasonability, not competing-interpretations. I would prefer to hear about the resolution and not theory. I will default Aff on theory. Also, I presume that fairness and education are voters, so while you can argue otherwise, keep that in mind. I'm also more accepting of RVIs than most judges. ==== ====**Prestandards/A-priori arguments:** I don't necessarily have anything against these types of arguments, but often they're just stupid and shady. If your plan is to read a bunch of blippy prestandards, I won't be happy. Moreover, my threshold for what counts as a sufficient response to these types of arguments will be dramatically lower than other arguments. With that said, I view "prestandards" as just another way to weigh arguments. If you're being smart and substantive about it, go ahead. ==== ====**Presumption:** I will default however the debaters tell me to. Just remember to win offense; defense alone will never win you the round (and if does, something went horribly wrong). ====

**Kritiks:** Slow down on dense philosophy. Unless told otherwise, I presume that Ks need an alternative.
====**Counterplans:** I think it's fine if the CP is topical, but ONLY if the Aff is not defending the whole resolution. Otherwise, the CP is probably Aff ground. I presume Aff if the Neg reads a CP. Competition through net-benefits is sufficient. ==== ====**Disads:** How does uniqueness work in LD if the Affirmative is defending the status quo? Also, I often think the internal links are just sloppy with most DAs. Debaters jump from the link to the impact of extinction without explaining the story. ==== ====**Impacts:** Great debaters take the time to weigh/establish an impact calculus/crystallize. I will vote for the debater who wins the important arguments, not the debater who wins the most arguments. ====

I will never vote down a debater for offending me (without an argument made that I should), but I will give 23s like no tomorrow if you do so.
====**Which brings me to this:** I've notice there's a tendency to dismiss arguments by saying "that would justify X, which is clearly immoral" - for instance, by saying that skepticism justifies genocide. While I don't think this type of argument is necessarily bad, it does seem to just beg the question of the original position. You need to engage every position logically, giving it the credit it deserves. Even if it goes against your traditional beliefs (e.g., that extinction is good), don't assume that it's "obviously absurd." ==== ====**Discourse arguments:** However, with that said, I am open to arguments which challenge the discourse and assumptions that your opponent makes. If you want to argue that I should vote down your opponent for saying something offensive, go ahead, but you need to develop the position and explain why what they said is actually offensive. I'm also willing to vote for performances, narratives and ironic positions. I have no preference for or against these types of advocacies. ====