Minton,+Tyler


 * Debate Experience:**
 * Kingfisher High School, 2006-2010**
 * University of Oklahoma, 2010-2013**


 * Big-Picture Stuff:** The best way to succinctly summarize my judging philosophy would be to say that I consider myself to be a tab judge. While I usually choose to debate K’s, and I usually enjoy watching them, I will listen to and evaluate basically anything (except for extremely stupid and/or offensive things like racism/sexism good, which will earn you an auto-loss). All that I require is that whatever you present is an argument, meaning it contains three things: a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If it’s missing one of these, it becomes hard for me to evaluate it at the end of the round.


 * Specific Arguments:**


 * Topicality/Framework**-I tend to default to reasonability, unless there’s a compelling reason for me to evaluate topicality differently. Meaning, if you want to go for procedurals in front of me, be sure to do a lot of impact work in terms of the ballot, especially in the 2NR. I will not just assume that T is a voter, you have to tell me why this is true. Proving in-round abuse or “topical version of the aff” can both be fairly compelling to me. I like impact turns to T/Framework, and I particularly enjoy debates where there’s a lot of interaction between these arguments and more technical, procedural aspects of T/Framework in the impact calc of the 2NR and/or 2AR.


 * Counterplans/Disadvantages**-Counterplans are cool, provided there’s some element of textual and/or functional competition. I need to know what the difference between the counterplan and the aff is, and why that’s important. Otherwise, I’ll probably just vote on the perm. As far as disads are concerned, I believe they can be either good or bad. For instance, a good disad will have specific links and a coherent internal-link story. A bad disad will be generic, disjointed, and will consist of a couple of under-highlighted cards with one or two-word tags (i.e. “Nuclear war” or “Extinction”). Just be sure to provide a coherent scenario, and do good impact calc in the 2NR.


 * Kritiks**-I’m a big fan of the K and Kritikal affs. I really enjoy participating in and listening to well-executed kritikal debates. However, you still need to do sufficient work if you want me to evaluate the kritikal aspects of your argument. Links should be contextualized to the affirmative, and I should feel that both you and I understand your K as more than just a collection of buzzwords. Impact calc and comparative warrant analysis are VERY important to me, so I’m not just left with a stack of critical literature that I have to sift through after the round. This goes for both sides of these debates. I’m familiar with a wide range of the literature for the K, so there’s a good chance I know what you’re talking about. Still, don’t take it for granted that I’m on board just because I like K’s. Just explain your argument to me, and make sure it makes some sort of sense.


 * Theory**-On some level I find theory debates intriguing, but feel they can usually be resolved by rejecting the argument, not the team. It’s possible to convince me otherwise, but you need to give a compelling reason why these arguments should get my ballot. Only one other thing: If you feel that it’s important enough for me to vote one way or another on, be sure to put it on a separate flow.


 * Performance**-I’m cool with it, and it usually gives me interesting stories to tell other judges/coaches/debaters. Just be sure to have a defense of your performance, otherwise you’re just making a fool out of yourself.


 * Miscellaneous Stuff based on questions debaters have asked me:**
 * Speed is good, just be clear.
 * I appreciate humor and ethos, but try to not be overtly rude.
 * Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves the computer.
 * DO NOT STEAL PREP. If prep time isn't running you should not be talking to your partner about the debate, typing on your computer, writing on your flow, or doing anything else to prepare yourself or your partner to speak. If it happens I'll take approximately the amount of prep you stole off of your prep time, and if it happens again I'm going to start docking speaks. If you are out of prep, I'll ask you for the order and then start your speech timer if I think you're trying to stall.
 * I’m not super flow-oriented, but I debated on the college circuit for three years and I can keep pace with more technical rounds. However, whether you’re debating on a meta-level or about technical minutia, try to keep the debate organized.
 * I'm not going to give you time signals. You're not ready to speak if you don't have a timer in your hand. It's my job to evaluate the arguments made in the round, not to make sure you manage your speech/prep time. Besides, don't all you kids have cell phones these days?
 * Signpost. Please.
 * I appreciate it when you call me “Tyler” instead of “judge”.
 * Don’t take yourself or the debate too seriously. That’s just a good way to get flustered and embarrass yourself.
 * Don’t be too concerned with attempting to adjust your strategy to my preference. You’re much more likely to get my ballot by running something you understand and enjoy, rather than pandering to my judging philosophy.
 * If there’s anything specific about my philosophy that you’re unsure about, ask me.
 * Have fun.