Downs,+Kylie

__ Experience- __ I competed Policy for Sky View High School in Utah for two years. I am now a quasi-assistant coach at Sky View.

Cautiously, I say that you can run whatever, and however you want in front of me. I’m not going to drop you for how fast or what you run in front of me. Though I do have natural biases and other qualifiers that I'm attempting to express below.

__ Now for the caveats- __

1 - I care. I was a debater, and I care about how the round is judged. I’ll do my best every round.

2 - I’m a debate judge. This means debate in front of me, not simply orate. I prefer debates with clash, dueling oratories put me to sleep and that shows up in your speaks.

3 - Slow down for taglines. I can flow fast rounds, IF you slow for tags. If you opt for not slowing down for tags, it won’t be flowed, and what isn’t flowed can’t/won’t be evaluated. I’ll jot down some general notes, have a general idea of your position, and do my best.

4 - I will presume an impact calculus to weigh the round if neither framework works, or if they’re both somehow dropped, which I’ve only ever seen in novice rounds.

__ Specific Arguments- __ I tend to vote for traditional arguments more often than not.

Explain it well, show abuse, and I’ll vote for it. However I don’t enjoy theory for the sake of theory, or as a cheap way to win. If you can show in round abuse you’ll easily get my vote on theory.
 * Theory-**

I love T. Explain it well, show abuse and I’ll vote for it. I don’t care if it’s run as a time suck but I generally don’t find it to be an enjoyable debate, and that may, unconsciously, effect your speaks.
 * Topicality-**

I don't love K's. Spend a lot of time on the alt. If you are running real world impacts, spend a lot of time there too, I’ll buy them if clearly explained and you win the debate there, though I think they’re at least slightly ridiculous and that may give me a slight bias against them while judging. Explain your K’s framework too, sometimes I’m confused if a framework isn’t included in the K, make sure to explain it to me by giving a normal value/criterion framework or a “discourse first” type framework. I have now seen several critical AFFs and feel pretty comfortable with them, again however, be able to explain them well and clearly show brink to your impacts.
 * K’s-**

I understand how they function. My threshold for your opponent showing abuse here is relatively low. But as with all arguments, I'm open to you running them and will vote for them.
 * Plans/CP’s-**