Colwell,+Tyler

Fall 2016

I debated for 3 years at Ronald Reagan High School (LD/Policy) and 5 years at the University of Texas at San Antonio (Policy). 6 years of judging experience. I judged high school debate when possible during my time in college, including a break from college debate before my last year. I was out of debate for a couple of years doing an MA in Philosophy at U of Memphis, but shouldn't have trouble keeping up.

I mostly did critical debate at UTSA, and am very familiar with it. I have often voted against critical teams that are out-debated by policy teams, though. There is no reason to be afraid to go for policy arguments; if it is what you are best at, then you absolutely should read them.


 * General**
 * I don't have any preferences for arguments presented in a round. I generally prefer that debaters read what they are most comfortable with, and try to make the best arguments possible. Do what you're good at.
 * Speed is fine, but clarity is essential. I can't flow what I can't understand.
 * Spin control/explanation is important to win debates, and will be rewarded with speaker points. However, it is not mutually exclusive with good evidence. When comparing spin vs. quality evidence, I side with evidence as long as it is sufficiently explained. I like to have a good story/explanation of the argument over more evidence, should you have to make that choice.
 * My standard for competition is that the Neg should prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary. Alternative methodologies that "solve better" are insufficient without proving this. ROB arguments can be made in the round to change this, but must be well explained.
 * I prefer strong link and internal link stories and good impact comparison. I don't like "risk of a link..." arguments as much, but I will vote on them if necessary.
 * I tend to side with the Aff on questions of topicality and the Neg on theory. These are just tendencies, though, and I will vote on any good argument.
 * Speech docs don't replace the flow. I flow on paper, always evaluate the flow first, and look at evidence in the context of the flow. I generally look at evidence when there are arguments presented about the validity/soundness of the evidence itself, if I have personal questions about pieces of evidence, or if I have to adjudicate arguments based on evidence comparison.


 * T/Framework**
 * Topicality debates can be great when they are well explained and give a vision of what debate looks like. Examples of arguments included/excluded from your interpretation and why those arguments are or are not good for debate are extremely helpful. Again, explanation is key, even in technical debates.
 * I tend to side with the Aff on reasonability, as long as it is well explained in the context of the interpretation and the argument is won on the flow. I will otherwise evaluate T through competing interpretations.
 * I don't have a problem with T/Framework as an answer to K Affs, though I prefer substantive reasons to vote for T/FW over theory generally. It's strategically beneficial to show why a focus on an external actor (the USFG) is better than focus on personal agency/identity or criticisms, both while answering impact turns and showing that there is a benefit to your framework. I don't have any issues voting on theory alone, though, as long as the impact turns are answered in some fashion (T version, arguments from fairness, etc.).


 * Critical/Non-Traditional Debate**
 * I have no problem with critical debate or K Affs. While I generally prefer a relation to the topic in some fashion, and an advocacy statement, I always evaluate rounds based on the arguments presented. Affs that are critical of debate and may not have a direct relation to the topic are fine as well; my concerns with these affs are mostly strategic responses to T, rather than the content of the aff. If you are comfortable and confident with these affs, then feel free to read them.
 * Explanation is essential. These are arguments based in very complex literature, and you should be aware of and explain the nuances of your position. I also prefer link specificity, either through good link evidence or through a good case debate.
 * Self-serving role of the ballot arguments are not good framing arguments, in my opinion. There should be a clear way for me to adjudicate the Aff's claims in the context of your ROB. However, if my ballot is important in some way, then this must be explained.
 * Feel free to read performance/methodology/etc. arguments as long as they are well explained. I enjoy creative debates the most, so well-presented, non-traditional arguments are enjoyable to watch.


 * Speaker Points**
 * It is important that debaters have a presence in the round. Do not confuse assertiveness with aggression; you can be intense without being mean or dismissive.
 * I also award speaker points based on smart strategy, creative arguments, and especially clear and good explanation.
 * I do not ever add or deduct points based on the types of arguments that people run; I am only concerned with how they are run. Strategy is rewarded, but I will not drop points based on someone reading framework or a K.
 * Try to have fun! The best debates that I have been in or have judged have been debates where people had a good rapport. This isn't mutually exclusive with intense debates, either.
 * I wish that I did not have to add this, but I should be clear: racist, sexist, heteronormative, ableist etc. language, as well as misgendering, and any other offensive/derogatory statements, will either lead me to drop speaker points or vote against a team, depending on the severity. I generally avoid intervening, but I do not feel comfortable voting for teams that directly attack other people in this fashion.


 * If you have any other questions or concerns, email me at tyler.colwell122@gmail.com.**