kendall kaut ParadigmLast changed 9/18 11:36P UTC
Olathe North (KS)- 2006-2009
In high school, I finished 6th at the 2009 NFL National Tournament.
I debated for four years at Baylor. I went to the NDT three times and cleared at GSU, UMKC, Kentucky, Wake, USC and Northwestern/Texas.
I've led labs at Baylor and Kansas. I'm now an assistant district attorney in Johnson County, Kansas.
I have been largely out of debate for the last few years. When I debated, I always read a plan and primarily went for politics and a CP. That doesn't mean you have to debate that way.
I am happy to answer any question before the debate.
Truth sets the baseline for how much you might need to out-tech someone. I'd rather be arguing something true than false, but I'd prefer to be the best team in the country arguing something a little less true. That's not me saying the best team in the country--something I have no idea who that is--is going to win me. It's me saying that I'd prefer to be on the side of truth, but that a better team in that debate can probably out-tech someone when the truth differential is low.
Anybody can win any debate. I will vote for the team that I thought won the debate.
Topicality/Framework: When debating is done equally between the sides, I think you should have a plan. Most debates do not happen equally. I have voted for no plan teams or teams with a tangential relationship to the topic. Those teams are going to have a tougher time winning me if the other side is close to them in ability in that debate.
I am open to competing interpretations or reasonability. Generally this does not decide debates--if you're winning reasonability is good, you've probably also won that your interpretation is better--or at least it seems that way in the debates I judge.
I have not done any topic research, and I am not familiar with the topic. If you shout that some interpretation excludes or includes certain affirmatives, please explain why that's a big deal or core topic ground.
DA's- There can be no risk. I am open to one or two good defensive claims, and that's generally better than going for 11 arguments on the DA in the 2AR.
I am probably more open to analytics against bad politics or other DAs than other folks.
Uniqueness determines the direction of the link, or vice versa, normally isn't that relevant. I evaluate everything, and I can't think of a time that's been a decision point for me.
CP's- Open on competition. On the side of truth, I think private actor, consult and non-textually competitive CPs are generally bad. I think states, international actor or PICs are generally good. You can win either side on those things.
Two conditional advocacies seems fine. More than that seems tougher. Again, these are not positions that I find myself unmovable in on a debate.
K's- Generally the more your K interacts with the 1AC, the better place you'll be. Self-serving framework or role of the ballot arguments, unless dropped, are a high climb for me.