Haynal,+Kaitlyn

Kaitlyn Haynal – University of Wyoming, 2nd year graduate student and debate coach. Former debater of James Madison University and Broad Run High School Just finished my second year judging at the college level, have also previously judged hs debate, however, I have not judged any high school rounds on this year's topic yet.

Nuances:

1. Paperless debate –Please be reasonable. When you say stop prep you should be ready to save to the flash drive. 2. Prep Time: I will keep the official prep time. However, I may not notice when you’re done so make sure you tell me and keep your own time.  3. Speaking: Make sure to differentiate when switching from end of card to tags. Make sure to slow down on your analytics- if they are that important to the round you will want to make sure I have them flowed. While I tend to evaluate who won debates based on line by line clarification; it is your overviews and warrants and decision calculus/role of the ballot that will guide my focus and your points so be sure to invest the time it takes to really win an argument. I prefer a team who condenses more towards the end of the debate and invests time where necessary over teams who keep big flows and card dumps with less analysis. Pick what you need to win and spend time there developing your warrants. If you are a team who likes to go for everything in the 2nr/2ar with little analysis thinking I'll just call for your cards, I'm probably not the best judge for you. 4. I prefer not to have to call for evidence but will if there is evidence being contested. If you take the time to really weigh out which pieces of evidence are most important for you in the round and spend more time on them, you will likely be rewarded more than a team who shadow extends a lot of arguments. 5. Speaker points will be given based on the quality of debate I see in the round, never based off predispositions I have toward your team or argument style. 6. I flow cx.

Specific Arguments:

The K: On the neg, a clear, strong link between your kritik and the affirmative is always prefered- cards are good for this, so is actually reading and referring to the other teams specific aff evidence and arguments. Impact it out. It’s great if you have a link, but if I don’t hear/understand the impact/alt, it will likely not end well for you. On the aff, I know there will be affs that don't utilize a traditional defense of USFG action, which is fine. I prefer affs be in the direction of the resolution (however you interpret that), however, none of my beliefs guide how I decide the rounds- that is up to you and how well you debate your aff/framework. I judged an unending amount of 'clash of civs' debates this past year, and feel that my record has been relatively split between picking up traditional vs nontraditional teams. Whether you are more policy, more critical, do what you want to do.

Framework- I enjoy framework debates when done well. I like to hear about what type of standards we are setting for debate expectations, how we should engage the resolution, fairness v edu v predictability hierarchy, switch sides, ect. I like them to be impacted out as to what type of arguments should be in debate and why, particularly compared to your opponents interpretation.

Topicality: Provide a sound interpretation with reasons to prefer, a clear violation, and impact it.

DAs: I like- please don't read terrible, blippy evidence.

Cplans: Consult and condition cps are not enjoyable for me. I enjoy creative adv cps. Agent cps that get bogged down on mechanism questions are not my strongest suit, however, i love a good cp/da v case debate.

Case debate- I'm a big fan

Random last words: I try and keep my expression fairly neutral during the round. Friendly behavior will earn you smiles, rude behavior will bring clear disappointment. Don't rely on the assumption I have a background on everything you talk about, you will need to invest the time to warrant out your ks/arguments just the same to have made a complete argument. Regardless of my previous knowledge, you will win or lose based on how you present your arguments in the round. My debate background is heavily rooted in my experience as a part of D7(mid-atlantic/VA debate), meaning more conservative. I saw very few nontraditional or heavy K teams in my debate career, however, after this past year of judging, my exposure to a wide variety of argumentation styles has increased drastically, which is evident by the types of teams and debates I judged in college which you can see on my tabroom philosophy page.

Debate has always been a community I have loved being a part of, for better or worse. I have met most of the smartest/interesting/caring people I know because of it. As a previous debater and now coach, I hope to continue to support making this activity something everyone else in it loves to be a part of as well, so remember to take the time to enjoy the people you meet and debate your heart out.