Kendall Kaut
 Olathe North (KS)- 2006-2009
 Baylor- 2009-2013
 I want the emails. kendallkaut@gmail.com
 In high school, I finished 6th at the 2009 NFL National Tournament (now for some awful reason renamed NSDA).
 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 (back in the day it was one tournament flipped locations season; not sure if that's still the case).
 I've led labs at Baylor and Kansas. I'm now a lawyer. 
 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--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.
 Affirmative plan texts as competition: Back in the late 2000s and early part of the last decade, there was a giant fear that textual competition would mean that affirmatives would start writing plan texts that virtually did nothing to spike out of all links and counterplan competition. 
 That has happened in some of the debates I've judged recently. 
 I would be willing to vote for vagueness--certainly develop it--or that the affirmative does nothing when it's eight words that mean nothing. I am clearly not asking for you to specify a bunch of things. But I am appalled if you basically read the resolution then clarify in the 2AC you don't link to a DA and a CP is non-competitive because, "How could you possibly think our plan that means nothing does something beyond solve our aff in ways you couldn't predict." 
 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.
 Given I don't judge often, please explain why including or excluding certain affirmatives is important. If you scream, "They exclude this affirmative," or "They'd include these affs" it's not going to be persuasive to me without an explanation for why that inclusion or exclusion is bad. 
 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.
 I am less offended by more conditional worlds than I am by how the conditional worlds interplay. It's probably easier to be affirmative against four conditional worlds--with broad and stable offense against most of those worlds--than against two counterplans that force a narrow sliver of offense. For example, on a prior topic (now many years ago) I judged debates where teams would read "be super mean to China" and then a CP that's "cooperate on everything imaginable with China." That seems much more suspect to me than reading the Security K, an actor CP and an advantage CP. But I don't see most teams dig-in with a stable interpretation or explanation of why the deployment of conditionality in the egregious instances are bad. And if you let the negative generically defend that conditionality or negative flexibility is good in the abstract, it's going to be an uphill climb.
 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 not my favorite thing.
 I would really prefer to not judge a Cap K v. leftist aff debate. If that's your top strategy, then okay. But I think I've judged or been in every variant of that debate, and those debates are ridiculously boring. There is nothing original left to say or hear in those debates.
 I often vote for the K against soft left affs. I think those affirmative teams are too afraid to run slightly to the right against the K, which leaves the negative destroying the affirmative on framework or why the permutation will fail. I've voted for plenty of soft left affs, but I think more of them would be in better spots against the K by just saying, "The thing you critique is actually good."
 Arguments I will not vote on/closing thoughts: I will consider just about anything. But I will not vote on racism good, death good or suicide good. Even as devastating as this year has been, and unfair as society's structure is to many people, existence is good. Judges do a grave disservice to anyone in high school by not immediately informing them that "death good" or "suicide good" are terrible things to advance.
 While there are many moments judging debate that are frustrating and make me wish I was doing something else, there are far more that remind me the next generation is filled with wonderful and brilliant students that will resolve many of the intractable conflicts we face. Debate is better when we're all nicer to each other. I was certainly too competitive at times when I debated, so I understand it's tough to not be a jerk sometimes in debate, but life is a lot better when you're not.