Kyriss,+Ryan

Ryan Kyriss UNL 2013
 * Experience**: 3 years competitive high school policy, 2 years parli and LD (mostly LD). I was a huge T/theory hack but I still threw it down on politics on occasion. I debated for Nebraska under the amazing Darrel Farmer, who is my biggest influence as a debater, coach, judge and maybe even human being.


 * OVERVIEW:** I can flow. You can go fast as long as your opponent doesn't mind. I'll vote on mostly anything.

This is how I decide a round, by default. The first step will never change. The rest will if you tell me to change it. __For those reading at home, this is probably the most important part of this page__: 1) does the round warrant intervention based upon an ethical violation (obscenely racist, homo/trans-phobic, etc., rhetoric or obvious cheating)? 2) does the aff meet the burdens prescribed to them by the activity (stock issues/rules) or the negative team (some sort of theoretical objection)? 3) does the aff present a comparable advantage to the status quo or a competitive alternative course of action offered by the negative?


 * SPECIFICS:**


 * Rules: ** My default stance is that I enforce the most compelling interpretation of the rules given to me by participants in the debate. If no vision of the rules is given, I default to my own interpretation of the rules -- some of these interpretations are scattered throughout this paradigm, but trust me: when in doubt, tell me how to evaluate something. Please.


 * Speed/Formality:** I do think the rules take a clear stance in the use of the word 'conversational' to mean that all participants involved need to be part of the conversation. In other words - if your opponent asks you to slow down and you choose not to do so, you'll find that you've made yourself quite susceptible to losing on the speed K. Please stand up and look at me when you're speaking. I may be young, but I have the hearing of someone twice my age.


 * Stock issues:** The rules make it clear that a lack of inherency, topicality, harm or solvency is enough to warrant a negative ballot in NFA. Inherency is best proven when you treat it like you would a procedural or topicality argument (give me a definition of what is inherent, how the aff doesn't meet it, why the definition works and reasons to vote). Topicality is an issue of competing interpretations unless compellingly argued otherwise. Terminal solvency defense is absolutely possible, and enough for me to vote neg.


 * Disads/CPs:** I love politics disads. I absolutely love affirmatives that impact turn politics disads and force the NR to clean up the mess. Conditionality is arguably forbidden by the rules but I think there are arguments that can be made that justify it within the framework of said rules, too, so go ahead and make them if you're feeling adventurous. I love PICs and I'm super jealous that topical counterplans weren't legalized until after I graduated.


 * Kritiks/Alternative Frameworks:** My default stance is that the rules permit kritiks as long as you have a compelling link to the topic/the affirmative. I have strong preferences about how kritiks ought to be run (your alt should solve as little as possible and your links should turn/outweigh case as much as possible) and I'm hesitant to believe that it is possible to run one successfully in NFA, but you're welcome to try. I'm willing to use alternative framework for impact evaluation if asked and justified.

Best of luck to everyone. I love debate and I'm happy to be judging.