Bailey,+Kevin

Hello! My name is Kevin Bailey. I have four years of policy debate experience at Rufus King High School. Three of those years were at the varsity level. I have no national circuit debate experience, but I have seen numerous out rounds at the Glenbrooks, Harvard, CFL nationals and NFL nationals. I have no judging experience on this topic. Speed: I am fine with CLEAR spread. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the fastest, I would say that I can handle a 7 comfortably. Just make sure that you are organized, no matter how fast you are. If I get lost, I am NOT doing the work for you on the flow and I will NOT ask for tags just to make sure I have them. Disadvantages: I am cool with them. As with any argument, the link story must be clear. With that said if the link isn’t clear, I am not going to punish you for it on the flow. I will leave that to the affirmative team to point that out. Nuclear war impacts are cool, so long as it is explained. Everyone in the policy debate realm knows, but I want the team to explain how their particular scenario will lead to nuclear war. With that said, I hate it when debate comes down to a numbers game, i.e. “We have three scenarios of nuclear war and the other team has two, so we win.” Just be organized and make sure it makes sense or speak points will be dropped! Counter plans: I am cool with them. I used to run counter plans all of the time. I am cool with all forms of counter plans; just make sure to be clear on why it is theoretically legitimate. If they are not, I will not punish you for it, as the other team should. The theory debate can, sometimes, get over my head so make sure that if you must engage in them that you make it easy for me to evaluate. A tip would be to slow down on the theory arguments. Critiques: I am not as cool with them. But if it is your main strategy, I do not want to discourage you from running them. Debate is educational and I really love good k debates. However, these debates can often time become very confusing to debate and judge. So I must remind you that if you choose to engage in a k debate that you are ABSOLUTELY clear of what the link, implication and alternative are. Affirmatives, be clear as to what the perm is. Topicality: I like a good T debate. But I really hate stupid T arguments. Negatives: don’t just run T to run it!!! If the case is a blatant violation, then by all means feel free to call the affirmative team out on it. On case: stay away from inherency debates unless absolutely necessary. I like good case debates. It is the thing that the affirmative. Sometime forget to mention in the 2ac or just underestimate overall. But please make these arguments make sense to someone who has not had any experience on this topic!!!