BACKGROUND:
Tyler Jackson is an assistant debate coach at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, WI. He debated for Marquette from 2003-2006. This is his third year judging and coaching high school debate.

POLICY PHILOSOPHY:

Background:

I debated locally, regionally, and nationally at Marquette University High School for three years and graduated in 2006. I have been an assistant coach at Marquette for the past two years while attending Marquette University. I was coached by Andy Nolan and was coached by and have worked for Bill Batterman; those are my major debate influences.

Philosophy:

My argument preferences are largely unimportant: I am comfortable judging a wide variety of debates including those typically characterized as "policy" and "critical." The content of your argument is less important than the way in which you debate it – explanation, quality evidence, strategic decision-making, and comparative analysis are all more important for winning my ballot than the genre or political orientation of your original arguments.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS PHILOSOPHY:

I come from a policy debate background, having never competed in LD, but I have judged the event quite a bit during the past three seasons. My background in policy debate undoubtedly colors my predispositions about LD so consider yourself warned.

If a framework (standard/criterion/burden) is accepted by both debaters, I will evaluate debates by filtering arguments through the lens of the agreed upon framework. If the framework for evaluation is contested, I will evaluate debates by first determining which framework is superior and then by filtering arguments through the lens of that superior framework. Impact analysis is very important and is often the key determining factor in my decisions.

Stylistically, speed and highly-technical presentations are fine -- again, my background is in policy debate. I appreciate debaters that read evidence to support their claims. I do not have much experience with advanced LD theory and as such I am uncertain how I will evaluate theory debates, a priori arguments, critiques, counterplans, etc. You are certainly willing to use these strategies but in general I will be evaluating your arguments from the standpoint of a policy debater; it will be hard for me to conceptualize a critique, for example, without coloring my evaluation of the argument with my knowledge of policy debate.