Larson,+Kyra

Kyra Larson kyra.larson13@gmail.com

Last Updated: Fall 2017 Debated at Olathe Northwest for 4 years Attending University of Kansas Class of 2021, but I am not debating Assistant Debate Coach at Lawrence High School

__The Basics__ 1. First and most importantly tech over truth (almost in every case, exclusions at the bottom) 2. I'd rather you explain the warrants of your evidence, than reading 3 more cards that say the exact same argument 3. I can comfortably keep up with fast debates, they are what I preferred in high school, but go at what pace is best for you. Don't spread if you can't do so clearly 4. Affirmatives with excessive advantages/impact scenarios and/or extensive negative strategies are acceptable, but preferably the debate will condense at some point 5. Dropped "blippy" arguments can be voters i.e. Fiat is illusory and such. If it is dropped and the original argument included a warrant, a claim, and a voter I have a uniquely low threshold to vote on it as it was dropped - overall it depends on how said argument affects the debate

6. I will default to weighing the K against the aff if no other framework arguments are made

__T:__ Any strategic 1NC will run a T arg, that being said while I often extended it into the block it was a rare 2NR for me. It's very possible to win this debate, but it is very technical and the violation needs to be justified. There is an argument to be made for both competing interpretations and reasonability. You're losing in the 2AC if you fail to have both a we meet and a counter-interpretation. I've found that education and fairness are both highly valuable, and based on the debating have voted in favor of both. Standards-wise limits and ground are your best bet if you're doing something else, why? Do not run an RVI in front of me I'll be annoyed and simply question why such a stupid thing is occurring

__DAs:__ Specifics DAs will always be preferred to generics, but I understand the need to run them and will likely vote for them often. Bringing a DA into the block should include an overview, as much turns case arguments you can manage, and a lot of impact work. The Politics DA was my favorite and most frequent 2NR in high school. Just bc I loved them and they bring me joy doesn't mean I know your hack scenario, so please explain. All DA debates should include discussion of uniqueness, link, and impact

__CPs:__ Every CP you could think of is acceptable to run in front of me. CPs in the block should include overview of what the CP does to solve the aff. The affirmative team-the more creative the perm the more rewarded you will be, but it MUST be supplemented with explanation that isn't prewritten blocks from camp that you spread at me. Doesn't solve arguments are definitely your best bet. Negative-I won't kick out of the CP for you sorry not sorry do the work.

__Ks:__ It is critical that there is link and alt articulation. If the negative team is failing to engage the aff's arguments that is the easiest way for a K team to drop my ballot. When it comes to the K line-by-line is essential. I'm extremely comfortable with Kritiks though-it was ,after the Politics DA, my most common 2NR in high school and the argument I often took in the block. I'm well-versed in Fem, Legalism, Neolib, Heidegger, and Colonialism.

__Pace:__ I'm comfortable keeping up with fast debates. Take it back a notch on tags, T, and theory please. I'll say clear once and then if you continue to be unclear your speaks will suffer.

__Theory:__ More often than not Condo is good, but the aff can also win this debate. Other than that I don't hold many other default theoretical positions and tech over truth means these debates usually come down to technical skill.

__K Affs:__ If the right judge was present I would read these in high school. They're educational up to the point you can relate it to the resolution. Framework is the best argument against them

__Random:__ 1. Open cross is accceptable, but nobody is going to like it if you're all yelling over each other at once 2. I want the docs however they're being exchanged 3. Jokes and some non-targeted sassiness is humorous, but only in regards to arguments. If it's at a debater you're going to be very sad when you see your speaks 4. Death good was an argument I ran in high school. I'm adamantly opposed to it now. If you run this argument in front of me you will lose the debate no question 5. Have questions? Email me or just ask in the room (: