Note: Lots of updates throughout my paradigm. I flagged most of them with an "(Update: ...)." I also updated the pref shortcut in the overview.
Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)
West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 University of Iowa ‘23
I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): krkopf@gmail.com
Conflicts: Iowa City West High School
Bio: I'm a 5th-year coach for Iowa City West LD. I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year.
I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.
Online Debate:
-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot. Also, slow down extra on underviews, theory, and author names because I'm extra bad at flowing those.
-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed.
-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally
-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round!
-I will always keep my camera on when debaters are speaking. Sometimes I turn my camera off during prep time. Feel free to ask me to turn my camera on if I forget.
OVERVIEW: 
I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using a policy AC to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:
K – 1
Phil – 1
Theory/T – 1
Tricks – 2
Policy – 3
SPEAKS:
Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. NOT based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.
SPEED: 
Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews.
SPEECH IMPEDIMENTS, PRONOUNS, ETC:
I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.
If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so. Even if it doesn’t affect debate but you just want to talk still feel free to let me know! :)
Ks: 
This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc. I enjoy seeing a K executed well.
Theory/T:
I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. People read T against me very often, so I am familiar with that too. (update: I wrote this section after I graduated high school, I'm a lot more familiar with theory strategy now) I think the strategy behind Theory/T and the tech of Theory/T is cool and fun to watch. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:
- No RVI
- Competing Interps
- Drop the debater on theory and T
- Text of interp
- Norms creation model
- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient
Phil: 
I went to Valley, so I started out reading phil. I enjoy the nuance of framework debate, especially related to competing moral theories.
Tricks:
I never read tricks and I haven’t seen them in action too much (Update: I also wrote this section a while ago, I've seen tricks plenty now.)
Policy:
I never did this much, but I will also evaluate it like any other argument. I think the depth and applicability of policy args make them enjoyable to watch. (Update: I've judged a lot of policy style rounds and am much more comfortable with it, but still my least familiar style of debate)
Postrounding:
I think post rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to postround me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).
Misc:
*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick
*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true
*if an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.
*I won’t evaluate embedded clash unless an argument is made as for why I should.
*I will evaluate the entire debate regardless of what arguments are made that say otherwise.
*I have no clue what judge kick is