Klucas,+Kyle

__**Paradigm – 2013-14**__ I debated at Silver Lake High for 4 years, and I am in my third year of debate at K-State, and am also assistant coaching at Silver Lake. I’ll tell you to clear if I can’t hear you.

By that I mean that I don't have a particular presumption about certain arguments. Everything's a debate so i'll try to eliminate any bias. I don’t think there is any “right” way to debate. The right way to debate in front me at least is just to do what makes you comfortable. But above all you need to TELL ME WHAT TO VOTE FOR. This can come in any form, impact calc, role of the ballot, whatever. It just needs to happen somewhere to make my decision easier. tech > truth, but I'll usually preference good spin over bad evidence. I also tend to protect the 2nr alot in terms of new arguments, so 1ars should try to be explicit about stuff. With that said, I won't be nearly as sympathetic to a 2nr who goes for an argument, and fails to adequately shield themselves from possible cross-aps If you clip cards you get the loss and 0 speaks.
 * I think I’m tab.**

Ks are fine**.** I feel like I have read a wide enough variety of what’s out there to be pretty familiar. But this doesn’t necessarily mean I understand your K. like everything else for me just explain it and you’ll be fine. I am also more likely to vote for you if you make the K interact with the case (root cause, specific link spin, etc.) Reading K stuff on the aff is fine also. I just feel like it should be at least be tangentially related to the res.

Regarding T, I find myself voting for competing interps a lot, but I can be persuaded either way. Specific abuse makes me want to vote for you, not even just in-round abuse, but at the very least specific sections of the lit base you lose.

Framework is cool too, just be clear about impact claims like I said before. I also like topical version of the aff is especially persuasive here.

Other theory stuff is likewise, just be specific about the impact. Caveat: I probably err a little bit neg-wise on theory, and think hypothesis testing is good.

Disads are great. Politics disads rock. My decision is pretty straightforward – I evaluate the risk of a link and risk of the impact, and weigh that against the aff. You should probably do this analysis for me at some point in the debate. Like with the K you should talk about how it interacts with the aff.

Counterplans are fine too, just gotta compete somehow. I have sided neg on a lot of CP theory args, but I am very willing to vote aff on well established and impacted aff theory stuff.

Here is my speaker point scale 30 – It is unlikely that I will ever give out one of these. If I do it's because you are the best speaker I have ever seen in my entire life. 29.5 – You were absolutely dominant. Almost nothing was wrong with your speeches and you seemed focused and prepared for everything. I expect you to win top speaker at this tournament. 29 – You rocked it, but there were some minuscule mistakes. I expect you to win a speaker award here 28.5 – You were very good, and seemed well prepared. You are one of the better speakers I have seen at this tournament. 28 – You are an above average debater but there were some mistakes you made. 27.5 – You gave an average speech, just some stuff you need to fix. 27 – You were slightly below average. You seemed unprepared or mistaken about some stuff. 26.5 – You have a lot to fix/learn. Made some major mistakes 26 – If you get anything at or below a 26 from me its because you said something patently offensive or did something irreparably bad debate wise.