Kirkley,+Kyle


 * __//Kyle Kirkley//__**
 * __//STRIKES: CLOVIS WEST//__** **__//EVENT: LD//__**

In rounds I’m looking for three general things: A creative, informative and educational debate. I’m a flow judge, so keep me posted on the flow and I’ll be able to follow. When evaluating the flow I’m looking for: Impacts, Explanations, Extensions and Crystalization. All things said, I hope to see you in round and I will always answer questions that you may have prior to the round.
 * 1) **Speed**: Quick is good, fast is outrageous. you can’t cut cards shorter to make more arguments then that’s not my fault. So, take out some weaker arguments to allow for an optimum amount of time. (I hate to be a case-writing instructor, but this is to what it has come).
 * 2) **Theory Arguments**: Run them, but provide a strong explanation of the argument (I may not have thought that it correlates, thus this is crucial!) Logic in these arguments is also crucial, so ensure you have a strong connection.
 * 3) **Kritiks/The Other Crazies:** Sure you can run them, but here’s the rule of thumb for policy- based arguments: EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN. I’ve heard crazy Ks before where during the round the Neg couldn’t explain it well, then when asking him after the round it made more sense. Please, explain. A great explanation with strong cross-analysis gives me more reasons to vote for you than the other guy. ABOVE ALL THINGS: Ks NEED TO HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE. Without an Alternative, you put me in this figurative gray area where I have to decide: “does affirming have that many implications to vote Neg because he didn’t offer an alt?” Don’t put me in that situation.
 * 4) **Argumentation:** I want some clash. I don’t want 6 minutes of the Neg defending his case and stating how is arguments are great in comparison. I want to know what is so bad about the Aff. The opposite applies, too. Along with that, I want you to extend arguments as they give me a feel of what’s still in contention for voting issues (Because some of you willspread unclearly and then expect me to follow arguments that you never discuss after the constructive).
 * 5) **For the Classical Debater:** I know that in the clouds of Circuit debate, the populous of Value- based debaters is about the equivalent of unicorns; but for those who use the Value/Value-Criterion structure (or even the overarching standard structure), what I’m looking for are some impacts that are going to connect to the standard(s). That is a supreme voting issue if you are a classic. And don’t forget to extend arguments!
 * 6) **Crystallization:** Voting Issues and a wrap-up of where in the round you stand in reference to the burdens/frameworks.
 * 7) **Speaker Points:** For me, speaks are based upon overall execution of the debate. Give me a strong round with the big four things I want to see on the Flow (Impacts, Explanations, Extensions and Crystallization) you’ll get a 27-29 (Varying on how well you do on each). You’ve got to be spectacular in order for me to give you a 30.