Smith,+Talia

Former debater at Emporia High School (Kansas)- 2009-2013 - State champion, made it to quarters at Catholic Nationals, 10 rounds at NFL Nationals

Debated at Emporia State University and Kansas City Kansas Community College from 2013-2014

Coach at Olathe North High School in Olathe, KS

This (2014-15) is my second year judging high school debates, first year judging the national circuit. I debated straight-up policy in high school (CPs, DAs, etc). I started debating traditional K debate my first semester of college (primarily the Fem IR K). Then I started debating/coaching "alternative" method debates. So basically I'm down to judge whatever.

Speed- fine, obviously be clear.

"Policy" debates (about the government, CPs, DAs, etc)- Since I don't really do much work in this area now, I don't stay very up-to-date with topic literature. Explanations of plan/disad specifics are appreciated, like tell me what acronyms stand for, and what your technology does. That being said, I have plenty of experience with this style of debate. I like good, in-depth case debates. I am willing to vote on lack of solvency for either the case or counterplan. Generic disadvantages are fine, but on the flip side, I'm willing to vote on no link. It just depends on how the debate goes down.

Kritiks- Despite the fact that this is my main focus now, I'm not familiar with a lot of literature. Author names don't tell me anything about what a kritik is saying. This just means you'll have to do a good job explaining your literature. Chances are, I'll be able to figure out what you're talking about, but I won't be able to fill in the blanks for you. I'm willing to vote that the K turns the case without the alt, but you have to tell me to do so.

Method debates- This style is definitely still evolving, so really the most I can tell you is I'm down to watch you do what you do. Make sure you have links and reasons why I should prefer one method over another.

Framework- not a huge fan of framework. That doesn't mean you can't win it, it does mean you have to do a lot of work to convince me that the other team makes debate bad or impossible.

Theory- also not a huge fan of theory, especially when it starts out super blippy and then gets huge in the rebuttals. If you think you're going to go for theory at the end of the debate, at least have enough in the beginning of the debate to justify it.

All debates- clear stories in the rebuttal are really helpful. "Even if" statements are good. Overall, let me know why I should vote for you AND why I should vote against the opposite team. Good luck! (: