Tyler Kotler Paradigm

Last changed 10/15 11:14P EST

Debated 4 years at Cypress Bay High School '18, Washington University in St. Louis '22 (not debating)

Qualled to TOC junior and senior years

Please add me on the email chain: tylerk1004@gmail.com

General Info

Spin/explanation can go a long way against stronger evidence. Analytics are good too, especially when there is an obvious hole in an argument.

Please try to maintain a solid line by line and avoid extremely lengthy overviews. Numbered arguments (esp starting in the 2AC) help too. I flow by lining up arguments, and if things get messy, maintain 2AC order.

Knowing your own evidence well is really important and helps boost speaks when you can explain it well while extending it or answering CX questions about it.

Tech>truth for the most part, but make complete arguments.

I don't have much prior knowledge on the arms sales topic this year, so just make sure more specific things are explained.

Impact turns, re-highlighting evidence, speech efficiency are great.

Evaluating Debates

I'll start by locating the most important parts of the debate. The 2nr/2ar should make it clear what is most important in the debate and why you are ahead in those areas, especially in a debate with a lot of moving parts. This will naturally give me a lens to begin picking out the central questions.

I'll determine who is ahead in these parts of the round based on my flow. If there is a question that is too close to figure out, I will read the evidence relevant to this part of the debate. However, I really want you to guide this part of my decision! - Don't leave it up to me to read all of the relevant evidence and figure out on my own what out of the slew of 1nr/1ar cards will determine the direction of uniqueness on the politics DA - compare your evidence, use the warrants, explain to me why yours are better.

After answering the relevant questions, I'll compare them. Some issues in a debate will matter more, and this is where I'll figure out questions of offense. Framing arguments, turns case, impact comparisons, etc all factor in. Then, whichever team has more offense will win.

K affs:

I didn't read these in high school and didn't go for the K much either. I'm obviously open to them though. This just means that you need to be clear with explanations, as I'm more familiar with the neg's framework arguments. These affs should be in the direction of the resolution and not be negative arguments - advocate for a change from the status quo.

For framework debates, don't expect me to take an argument and cross apply it to other parts of the debate unless I'm told to. I'm not a fan of one side making arguments in long narrative format and the other side extending arguments on the flow. On the other hand, I'm lenient towards the neg if the aff's strategy is to speed through blippy arguments until the 2ar. On the aff, winning/beating back the internal links to the neg's offense plus a strong risk of your own seems most effective.

Ks:

I'm relatively familiar with the basic ones (cap, security, etc) and least familiar with high theory (Lacan, Baudrillard, etc), so I definitely require greater explanation for these.

Unless the negative is significantly ahead on framework, I tend to side with the aff being able to weigh the case, and I feel like the aff can often collapse into the middle ground (IE: rhetoric matters, but shouldn't exclude the process of weighing impacts) - fairness, policy education, and cost benefit analysis arguments make a lot of sense here. 1ar's are often blippy on framework, though, and the neg can definitely capitalize in the 2nr on this.

Please do not disguise tricky K arguments until the 2nr, make them blips in a long 2nc overview, etc - be clear with them. The "alt solves the case" shouldn't suddenly materialize in the 2nr, and I'll be lenient towards 2ar explanations against it if that's the case. Spend the time in the block to unpack these arguments. Examples are also great, especially when extending the impact/alt.

Perms on the aff can be explained to mitigate links, so I think the neg should have specific links to the aff and the perm. Explain how framework implicates the perm - IE: winning rhetoric first means the perm severs the aff's reps and isn't legitimate.

CPs:

Love a nice CP/DA strat. I'm neg leaning on most CP theory. However, that should not dissuade you from going for theory, and there are definitely some process CPs that are pretty illegitimate. Whichever side you are on, it's most important to avoid shotgunning subpoints and moving on. Be efficient in theory debates, but slow down, focus on your best offense, maintain a line by line.

On the aff, especially vs process CPs, don't just say perm do both, perm do the CP and move on. Setting up smart permutations and defending them can sometimes solve the net benefit, and the aff should set up a standard for competition in these debates (textual, functional, etc).

Courts affs that say USFG in the plan text have been sneaky this year and last. I can be convinced that the aff's solvency/advantages talk about using the courts and creating CP competition based on this.

DAs:

Turns case and impact calc are key, just don't neglect the the rest of the DA.

Create a coherent story of the DA and win the framing - explain why uniqueness controls the link or vice versa if relevant to the DA debate.

I don't think the 2ar must have offense against the DA to win the debate - a no link press with some impact D, for example, plus winning an impact on case with impact calc can be very effective.

T:

Often love T debates too. I default to competing interpretations, offense/defense paradigm unless told otherwise. I'll vote on reasonability, but I see winning your CI with a stronger piece of offense than the neg's offense as a better 2ar if you have the option. I see T debates kind of like DA debates, which means you should mitigate the internal links of their standards.

Limits often seems to be the best neg piece of offense, and you should impact it out and explain why it outweighs/IL turns aff ground, predictability, etc - same thing on the aff against limits or ground or whatever other standard the neg goes for.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/21/2020 VCX R5 Archbishop Mitty SC Edgemont Junior-Senior PF Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/21/2020 VCX R4 West Des Moines Valley KK Niles North NG Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/21/2020 VCX R3 Washburn Rural PW St Mark's School of Texas AB Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/21/2020 VCX R2 Liberal Arts and Science BR Lexington RF Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/21/2020 VCX R1 Blue Valley North PR Lane Tech HR Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/15/2020 VCX Double CK McClatchy BG Homestead MW Neg Neg on a 3-0
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/15/2020 VCX R6 Polytechnic OO Peninsula CS Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/15/2020 VCX R5 Archbishop Mitty AA Peninsula PS Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/15/2020 VCX R4 Bellarmine CD Winston Churchill BM Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/15/2020 VCX R3 Oak Park and River Forest GS Peninsula FW Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/15/2020 VCX R2 Casady BH Silver Creek SG Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/15/2020 VCX R1 Lowell CW College Prep KS Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/23/2019 VCX Sextos Maine East PP North Star TO Neg Neg on a 2-1
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/23/2019 VCX R6 Iowa City West DS Berkeley Prep ZK Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/23/2019 VCX R5 Washburn Rural SD Shawnee Mission East WS Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/23/2019 VCX R4 Peninsula MS Rowland Hall BP Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/23/2019 VCX R3 Kent Denver MB Meadows HW Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/23/2019 VCX R2 Blue Valley Northwest BM Walter Payton PH Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/23/2019 VCX R1 New Trier SR Lexington AA Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/16/2019 JVCX Double BASIS Chandler MS Asian Debate League WL Aff Aff on a 3-0
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/16/2019 JVCX R6 St Francis LC Lynbrook LC Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/16/2019 JVCX R5 ADLT HY Head Royce BS Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/16/2019 JVCX R4 West Campus UT Langham Creek MS Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/16/2019 JVCX R3 Rowland Hall PB Kent Denver TC Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/16/2019 JVCX R2 Downtown AM Clovis North SK Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/16/2019 JVCX R1 University Independent BT Classical PT Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JCXRR R7 Niles North KR Mamaroneck LS Neg Neg on a 2-0
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JCXRR R6 Dowling Catholic PS Little Rock Central AK Aff Aff on a 2-0
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JCXRR R5 Niles West PS Greenhill GR Neg Neg on a 2-0
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JCXRR R4 Niles North PV West Des Moines Valley KD Neg Neg on a 2-0
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JCXRR R3 Berkeley Prep SP Jones CP KO Neg Neg on a 2-0
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JCXRR R2 Heritage Hall LP Greenhill KM Neg Neg on a 2-0
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JCXRR R1 New Trier LR Niles West BB Neg Neg on a 2-0
The Tradition Cypress Bay HS 10/7/2017 NCX R4 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart Hernandez & Nickerson Berkeley Prep Shah & Zinober Aff
The Tradition Cypress Bay HS 10/7/2017 NCX R3 Berkeley Prep Tun & Fernandez Pine Crest Prep Kislin & Rubin Neg
The Tradition Cypress Bay HS 10/7/2017 NCX R2 Berkeley Prep Solomon & Latif Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart De Ovin-Berenguer & Feila Neg
The Tradition Cypress Bay HS 10/7/2017 NCX R1 North Broward Prep Nikolopoulous & Ameen Berkeley Prep Kapadia & Poe Neg