Email Chain:

Krousekevin1@gmail.com

LD addition for KCI 2022:

Most of how I understand debate is from a policy debate perspective. I've coached traditional and progressive LD teams. Do you're thing and I'm happy to judge it. Judged a little on the national circuit last year. I think I'm a LARP judge lmao. or maybe a Phil judge, I do have a decent background in philosophy. Despite being asked if I'm ok to judge tricks debates repetitively, I still don't understand what this means. I'm open to mostly any arguments but you need to frame why I should win you the round. Offense wins debates. Lmk if you have any specific questions

Policy

Background:

I participated in debate for 4 years in High School (policy and LD for Olathe East) and 3 years in College (Parli for Washburn University). This is my 5th year assisting Olathe East debate.

Speed:

I can keep up for the most part. I will say clear twice in a speech if I feel like I am missing arguments, after that I get what I get. I'd like have speech docs shared with me but ultimately I evaluate the debate from what is on my flow, not in the speech doc. I think times in which I most often miss nuance that become relevant later in the debate are when teams are blazing through topicality and theory blocks at tops speeds.

Argument preferences:

In high school, I preferred traditional policy style debate. In college, I preferred more kritical arguments. I studied philosophy but don't assume I know everything about your author or their argument. Something that annoys me in these debates is when teams so caught up in buzzwords that they forget to extend warrants. In terms of judging, I'd rather you debate arguments you enjoy and are comfortable with as opposed to adapting to my preferences. A good debate on my least favorite argument is far more preferable than a bad debate on my favorite argument. I'm open to however you'd like to debate, but you must tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it. I'm not super prone to voting on Ks that do nothing or simply reject the aff. Justify your methodology.

K affs- I don't think an affirmative needs to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately. However I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for you.

I'm of the opinion that one good card can be more effective if utilized and analyzed effectively than 10 bad/mediocre cards. At the same time, I think a mediocre card utilized strategically can be more useful than a good card under-analyzed.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.