Powers,+Kyle

=Kyle Powers=

University of Nebraska - Lincoln

 * Debated for:** Lincoln High School (Sioux Falls, SD), 4 years
 * Rounds judged on Alternative Energy topic:** ~6
 * Years judging:** 2nd year out of HS

I consider myself a flow judge. I primarily judge the round on what was debated, and I will not intervene unless utterly necessary. I will evaluate dropped arguments before anything else in the round.
 * My Philosophy:**

I'm fine with tag-team cx, but don't take it overboard or you risk losing speaker points for both you and your partner.
 * Cross-X:**

I generally evalutate T as a competing interpretations debate. You need to be clear about your definition, why it fairly limits the topic, and why I should be voting on topicality. As for abuse, feel free to argue this, but it will be more convincing as an interpretations-based debate.
 * Topicality:**

Perfectly fine, not too much to say here. On the neg, please make sure you have an internal link. As for aff, please point out the flaws in the DA logic. There are multiple holes in every DA out there, so point them out, exploit them. The easiest way to do this is to read the other team's evidence. But, as stated before, I won't intervene and read the cards for you. If the link is conceded, regardless of whether it exists or not, then the neg has a link. See impact calc note at bottom.
 * DA's:**

Yes, please. There is nothing better than a well-developed cp/da strategy. I'm not big on delay cp's, but other than that, it's fair game.
 * CP's:**

A good, clean theory debate can win a round. On the other hand, if the theory debate consists mainly of non-responsive blocks and dropped arguments (as it is the majority of the time), it's very hard for me to vote on theory. Don't just read big blocks of theory arguments and expect me to decipher how it all lines up at the end of the round. I shouldn't have to think for 5 minutes at the end of the round to figure out what happened in the theory debate. Clearly explain to me: Big, generic theory blocks do none of this for you. You have to do at least a little work to make me vote on theory.
 * Theory:**
 * 1) What the theory argument is
 * 2) Why it applies to the round
 * 3) Why I should vote for it

Feel free to go for k's in front of me. I have knowledge on most k's, but I am by no means an expert on most k's. In order for me to understand your advocacy in a little over an hour, try to explain the argument in a less complicated manner. Don't simply read tons of critical literature at blazing fast speeds, my brain doesn't want to work that hard. In order to win on a k, you must:
 * K's:**
 * 1) Explain the link
 * 2) Explain why the aff is irrelevent (impact calculus)
 * 3) Explain why the alternative solves (K impacts, case, etc)

Important. The 2NR needs to first, narrow the round down to a few winning arguments, and second, provide me specific, macro-level impact calculus. I oftentimes struggle with how to properly weigh marginal differences in probability vs. magnitude vs. timeframe. When teams don't make these deliniations clear to me, this forces me to intervene, which is something I do //not// like to do. Few teams take into account the different spectrums of impact calculus. If you can properly pull this off, it will make things much easier for me and you.
 * Impact Calculus:**

[|Click here for more information about me]