McKee,+Kyle

I did policy debate for 4 years at Sioux Falls Washington High School in South Dakota. I primarily debated policy style arguments, but I was familiar with debating the K.

I default to a policymaker paradigm, but I am willing to listen to all arguments. If you want to run an argument and you feel like you are good at debating that argument, then read it.

On speed: I'm alright with listening to fast debates. On a scale of 1-10, I'd probably be a 7.

On DA's: I really like interesting DA's that aren't generic. However, I understand generics are necessary, and I will vote on them. I also like impact calc. If you plan on going for the DA in the 2NR, make sure that you have a fair amount of impact calc, as I find it to be the most effective way to get my ballot.

On T's: I default to competing interpretations as I feel examining different definitions and their merits is an important way to evaluate the resolution. I normally vote on T if the case is actually non-topical, but I can be convinced otherwise if the definitions are satisfactory. The standards debate is also pretty important to me. If you can prove abuse, it will be much easier to get my ballot on T.

On CP's: I also really enjoy creative CP's, although I find myself not voting for CP's too often. It seems like CP's are too often a timesuck, or it isn't explained well enough to get my ballot. The perm debate is very important, and the CP should be competitive, although it doesn't necessarily have to be non-topical. However, I am less likely to vote for PIC's than I would for other types of CP's.

On Theory: I don't like to vote on theory unless it is dropped or mishandled. I will default to rejecting the argument, although I can be persuaded to vote on theory provided there is actual abuse in the round.

On K's: I am familiar with the structure and processes of K's, but I have not read a lot of K literature. That being said, if the K is very theory heavy, make sure to give an explanation that I would be able to understand. I think the K can be a great way to garner offense, but it shows if you are not well versed in your own K. If you are going to read a K in front of me, make sure that you've read up on the literature, as it shows if you are uninformed. I also really enjoy interesting K's, and a great K debate will always keep the round interesting.

On non-traditional debate/K-Aff's: As kritikal affirmatives become more common, I find myself more and more willing to vote for them. However, if the K aff is very theory heavy, make sure that I get a good explanation. I am willing to listen to and vote on framework if you are the negative team, but I will vote for whomever best debates the framework flow. Negative teams that engage the affirmative are also much more likely to get my ballot.

Basically, run what you want and run it well. If you're enjoying yourselves, I am probably enjoying myself as well.