I'm a KU student and debated all 4 years for Manhattan High. I competed at nats in congress and pf all 4 years. So, that means I have experience and am a flow judge. If you drop something accidently and the other team calls it out and I catch it, you automatically lose the argument. Please signpost pretty please :))) I'm honestly open to any argument!

Speed - I'm not a big fan of spreading. I likely won't catch everything if you're spreading. I don't mind fast talking when reading cards, but when giving analytics slow down please. You don't need to go slow though.

CPs- love CPs! I used to run these all the time. The only thing about CP's is that I don't like when they contradict your other arguments. Please have good solvency cards for your CP. Also, please don't run abusive CPs.

DAs- DA's are good. Try to get a specific link, but if you can't, I'm still down to vote for the DA.

Ks- not my fav arg. I can understand them sometimes and will vote on them, but I'm not the biggest fan. I would prefer for you to not run it.

T- love T. If the neg wins on this, they will win the debate. Make sure you extend everything on T.

On case- PLEASE RUN ON CASE. I BEG YOU. When the aff doesn't respond to each argument and you call it out, it is so satisfying. I love on case if you can't tell.

Congress: I'm all about charisma. If you make a good joke, I'll love it. Also, please do not repeat others' points in your speeches. Also, I love neg arguments that attack the mechanisms of the bill/resolution.

Experience: I was a varsity policy debater in high school and judge frequently. I also have seen several rounds on the topic and have some previous experience. However, please clarify your acronyms and shorthand.

Speed: I can handle speed but prefer that instead of getting as much info out as possible, you strategically choose good arguments and evidence. I feel a slower pace (not necessarily slow enough to be conversational but slower than spreading) allows for more demonstration of communication and speaking skills.

Number of arguments: Do as many as you want, but I don't want to see debaters throwing out a bunch of arguments just to see what sticks and what arguments the other team drops. I don't feel this choice demonstrates critical thinking or strategic skill. I'd rather see debaters strategically choose strong arguments that support their position and stick with them. I also often feel that students who run too many arguments end up taking conflicting positions.

Types of arguments: I will vote on topicality but your standards and voters better justify spending time on the issue.

Counterplans are acceptable.

Theory and kritiks can all be acceptable depending on how they are run and what theories or kritiks you choose to run*. If/when you run a K you need to make the links clear, articulate the alt, and tell me why you need the ballot to achieve the alt. Why the ballot is critical to the alt is very important to me. However, I am generally opposed to K affs. Run these at your own risk.

*I will not vote on disclosure theory. If you cannot think on your feet or adapt to new information, you don't deserve my ballot.*

General Note: I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism other discrimination or intolerance. Debate is an activity that teaches real-world skills and each round is a chance to learn not to perpetuate harmful ideas.

they/them

Email chain or speechdrop both work! my email is: tarynday55@gmail.com

I did policy debate and LD for 4 years @ SMNW and I am a current college policy debater at Kansas State

Assistant coach at SMNW

Generic stuff:

-I will vote on almost anything so long as you win the argument and demonstrate that argument is sufficient to win the round.

-tech > truth

-I like speed just make sure to be clear

-I don't know too much about the high school topic so make sure to clarify any acronyms and we'll be good

-don't say or do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

-please flow

-I am generally a more K debate kind of person but doing whatever you are more familiar with and best at will put you in a much better spot than running a K you don't understand just because you think I will like it.

Specifics:

1. CPs--They're fine. I don't have many original thoughts here, I'll vote for a counterplan if I think it solves the aff and has some kind of net benefit. I think PICs are fair game but am less fond of things like delay counterplans.

2. DAs--You should have a clear link story and you should explain it to me in the 2nr if you decide to go for it. The more speific a link to the aff, the better. Explain why the DA turns the aff and outweighs.

3. T--You need an interpretation and to extend it, a violation, standards, and voters, if you don't have those parts, I will not vote on T. It also helps to develop your standards and voters outside of just reading blocks if you want T to be a viable 2nr strategy.

4. Theory--If you would like to go for a theory argument, you need to do good explanation and impact out why your specific theory argument is something I should vote on. Also, with "reject the team" type args, you need to specify a compelling reason to reject the team. Saying “reject the team, not the argument” is not actually an argument.

5. K affs--I am generally pretty familiar with k affs. If you are running a K aff, it probably should have something to do with the resolution. It doesn’t need to be topical in the same way a policy aff does, but there should be a clear reason why it’s directly relevant to the topic. If you don’t want to engage the topic for whatever reason, you’ll need some strong framing why. If you want me to vote for you, I need to understand what your k aff does, explanation in these debates holds a lot of value.

6. Ks on the neg--I very much enjoy Ks. However, if you are going to run a K, make sure you understand it. If you misrepresent a K I am familiar with, (queer theory, fem ir, cap are the main ones) I will be sad. Make sure you are doing good explanation with links, impacts, and the alt. In the block and 2nr you should be clearly articulating how the aff links, why that turns the aff, how it results in the impact, and how the alt resolves said impact. If you are aff against a K you should always weigh the impacts of the aff vs the alt. In turn, if you want to win on a K, make sure to tell me why, either you win on weighing the impact of the aff vs the alt, or give me framing to judge the debate in a different way. I don't think you need an alt to win on a K, just give me a compelling reason why you don't need one.

Overall, this is supposed to be a fun and educational activity, let's keep it that way.

Feel free to ask questions! :)

I judge more on policy than stock.

I like a good debate so don't spread your opp out of the round, that is not the goal.

Speed- moderate is good. If I put down my pen (yes, I am old school that way) you are going too fast. I am old(er) and my hearing isn't what it used to be.

Road maps are important, tell me where you are going and where I should be putting your arguments.

I debated in high school and have judge many rounds since so this isn't my first rodeo.