Kaya,+Kris

Kris Kaya Peninsula ‘16 Stanford ‘20 Conflicts: Peninsula, La Cañada AZ, Lynbrook

I debated for 4 years at Peninsula HS in California and attended TOC my senior year. I don’t hold any strong beliefs about what debate should be so I will do my best to evaluate the round objectively. That being said, I definitely have argument preferences that may manifest in my decision. While I won’t automatically default to arguments I read in high school, I will be more competent in evaluating those types of debates. I’ll vote on any argument that is warranted and impacted.


 * Updated for Stanford '18**

Short Version - In the absence of offense, I presume neg. - **I give low speaks.** - **I take prep time for flashing.** - I have a high threshold for voting on the K, philosophy, and theory i.e. Execution matters. I won't vote for any argument I don't understand. - I don't expect this to be a problem, but I'll wait **20** minutes after the round is supposed to begin before giving a forfeit. - Favorite Arguments: Politics disads, Advantage/Process Counterplans, Framework, Dedev - Judges/people I respect/admire: Ashan Peiris, Tim Alderete, Chris Randall, Travis Fife, Scott Wheeler
 * - Put me on the email chain: kkaya23@stanford.edu**
 * -** I unintentionally give really strong verbal cues, if I think an argument is dumb you'll be able to tell. Same goes with good arguments.
 * - I have a minimum standard for coherence of arguments or evidence. **
 * - I value evidence quality highly**
 * - If you win a theory argument in front of me with a voter of Cowardice, I'll give you +0.5 speaks.**

General - I’m extremely persuaded by disclosure theory/brackets bad. - You should properly extend/explain all arguments you go for, even if they are conceded. - You must be willing to flash cases, have a viewing computer, or pass pages. Anything your opponent can’t access, I won’t listen to.

Policy Arguments - Probably the debate I am most comfortable judging and my favorite debate to judge. Almost every 2NR on JanFeb my senior year was States/Politics. - **Evidence quality is really important**, I'll read evidence after the round if necessary. - Impact calc is huge here. - Pointing out flaws in evidence/scenarios is an easy way to crush a mediocre DA/Advantage - Counterplans have to be competitive, i.e. there has to be a disad to the aff that the counterplan avoids. - Perms also must have a net benefit. Proving the perm is possible doesn’t mean that there isn’t a disad to doing both. - **Offense matters - I think it’s silly to spend 2 minutes of the 1AR reading only defense on a disad.** - Impact turns are fun.

Philosophy - I read mostly util in my career but am capable of understanding other frameworks. Whether or not I want to hear other frameworks is another question. - Instead of relying on preclusion arguments, being comparative with framework warrants will make me more likely to resolve the debate in your favor. - I default to evaluating the framework debate (both ethical and K vs Policymaking) using epistemic modesty. Winning framework means that certain impacts are more or less important as opposed to implying that only certain impacts matter. That being said, I'll accept epistemic confidence if justified.

Theory/Topicality - I'm a big fan if executed correctly, especially with regards to T. - I’ll vote on any shell that’s won but I think that reasonability is a persuasive argument against a shell with marginal abuse. - I lean aff on most CP theory with the exception of Condo and maybe solvency advocate theory if the CP is intuitive/real. - Slow down for interps or send it in the speech docs. I find that a lot of theory debates come down to the wording of the interpretation. - Epistemic modesty applies here too. Winning impact calc for a certain voter doesn’t make other impacts irrelevant. - In a T debate, you have to have a counter definition. - Regarding Framework vs. a K aff, I lean negative and find TVA arguments pretty persuasive.
 * - Tech matters, but explanation matters more.**
 * - Default to competing interps, drop the arg, no RVI’s, but only if these debates aren't resolved.**

K Debate - I read quite a few K's in high school so I feel pretty comfortable evaluating these debates. I'm familiar with common args like Cap, but things like DnG require more explanation. I'll only vote on arguments that I understand. - I'm not the judge for a non-T aff, there should be a good reason why you don't defend the topic. - K’s aren’t automatically preclusive. The neg needs to weigh the aff against the K (i.e. debate it like a disad) - Topic specific links > generic state bad links - Often, these debates come down to the specificity of your arguments. Generic root cause claims or turns case arguments don’t cut it. - Please don't just read a prewritten overview/2nr, make sure your arguments actually apply. - Again, impact turns are fun.

Tricks - I tried reading tricks the summer before my senior year but then I realized that although strategic, they were bad for debate. - I’ll vote on anything, but I won’t vote on 1-sentence blip that gets blown up in the 1AR. - Again, I think these arguments need justification and explanation. If an argument doesn't have a warrant, I won't vote on it, even if its conceded. - My understanding of some things (such as skep) is limited so run them in front of me with caution.

Ways to lower your speaks - Not being able to explain your argument - Taking a bunch of unnecessary prep time. - Having bad evidence - Going for multiple positions in the 2NR - Being rude - Asking to take the rest of CX as prep

Ways to get higher speaks - Taking minimal prep time - Good/Badass Strategy - Technical Skills - Being generally smart - Funny jokes about Jonas Le Barillec - Good disclosure practices - Good overviews at the top of the rebuttals.

I think speaks are inflated in LD, especially now. That being said, if I think your performance in round is good enough to clear at a given tournament, you can expect at least above a 28. **The more enjoyable a round is for me, the more likely I am to give higher speaks.**