Hietala,+Kyle

Coach of St. Luke's School (Parli) and The Spence School (PF) Morse High School '14 Yale University '18 kyle.hietala@yale.edu


 * General:** I'm a student at Yale University and I competed regularly in parliamentary debate on APDA, ranked the 3rd best American team and the North American Champion in 2016. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas Debate for four years on the Maine circuit. I've coached LD and PF at Morse High High School and I currently coach Parli at St. Luke's School.


 * Paradigm:** I evaluate debate primarily on the clash of argumentation presented during the round and the ways in which arguments and impacts are weighed in rebuttal speeches. Though I inevitably judge the merits of arguments based on my own knowledge, I do my best to minimize my intervention in the round. I care much more about substance than style and I see through rhetorical gimmicks; as such, my speaker points reflect your analytical skill more than your tone/posture/eye contact/etc. I appreciate original and unorthodox arguments, but I vote primarily on how well arguments are developed and weighed, not how persuasively they are first presented. I strive to give thorough and thoughtful RFDs and I welcome questions, though my decision is final.


 * LD:** Framework, framework, framework matters most. I debated on a very traditional circuit (Maine) and had little exposure to national circuit-style debate. I never knew about special debate camps until it was too late for me to attend. I don't know much about theory debate and kritiks, but I know enough that if you do it well when it is absolutely necessary, I'll probably be receptive to it. Spreading is incomprehensible to me and I won't flow it, but you'll be fine speaking significantly faster than conversational pace. Give me a good value clash.


 * PF: *****Please contextualize evidence! I regularly notice PF debaters throwing out stats and facts without providing any sort of contextualization. I also notice too many debaters not using a framework to contextualize impacts, so please give me some sort of framework. I REALLY appreciate impacts/weighing that's more nuanced than "which side saves the most lives" or "which side is best for the economy."

I'm a reasonably well-informed and moderate person who is receptive to a variety of ideas and arguments. That said, I have ample training in evaluating the merits of sources and considering the trustworthiness of information, and I will use it when weighing the arguments and impacts. I tend to find peer-reviewed, non-partisan meta-analysis conducted by well-respected academic researchers the most convincing. I don't vote on evidence by itself; rather, I vote for arguments that are well-supported by evidence. It is not sufficient for you to just make 'factually correct' arguments about the topic; you need to weigh the impacts.