Huber,+Kayla

Updated 1/16/16

I competed in LD for four years at Buffalo Grove High School. I mainly competed in the local circuit and I've been out of the game for awhile, so consider me a glorified lay judge. Since 2012, I have recreationally judged for Buffalo Grove High School and Whitefish Bay High School.

**Experience Imbalance:** I wish this went without saying, but if you are a national circuit/varsity debater going against a novice/JV/cannon fodder/lay debater, do not attempt to traumatize your opponent by reading at your maximum speed, excessively spreading, or throwing a bunch of theory in their face. Debate, by construction, is a competitive activity, but it is also an educational activity. If you are an experienced debater of quality, you should be able to win the round without showboating.

I prefer to flow by hand, so I am physically limited in how much detail I can both document and comprehend of your case if you are speaking extremely rapidly. I will yell "clear" if you are incomprehensible. I will dock your speaks if I have to yell "clear" more than once. If I miss a key component of your case or rebuttal due to your unwillingness to slow down, that is on you and it may reduce your chances of winning the ballot.
 * Speed: ** I am capable of handling a moderate level of speed (6/10). ** Please slow down when stating your tags and the authors of your cards. **


 * Value Structure: ** My biggest pet peeve is when debaters have nonsensical or unsubstantiated value structures. My second biggest pet peeve is when debaters neglect the value debate, as it is one of the main ways I evaluate the round. If you would like to adopt or link into your opponent's value structure for the sake of efficiency, then by all means do so.


 * Theory: ** I do not appreciate 'theory for theory's sake.' I prefer for the round to be focused on topical and substantive issues. **Only use theory to check legitimate abuses, and be sure to clearly impact it.** I will use theory as //one// means of evaluating the round, but not the only one.


 * K: ** Kritiks are fine, as long as they are employed with a strong link and impacts. As stated before, I will use a K as //one// means of evaluating the round, but not the only one.

**Spreading:** All legitimate arguments must be composed of a **claim, warrant, and impact.** If you think throwing out 30 unsubstantiated claims in your rebuttal is going to win you the round, you are mistaken. Instead of being blippy, consolidate and support your responses.

**Speaks:** I give higher speaks to those with quality arguments, good strategy, good signposting, and good communication skills. I will give low speaks to those with poor communication skills (i.e., inarticulate, excessively fast, inappropriate volume), those who are rude during cross-ex or during their opponent's speeches, those who argue with my RFD, and those who miscut evidence. If it is proven that you have miscut evidence, that is an automatic L.