Kaitlyn Haynal -- James Madison

Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.

Judging philosophy:

Kaitlyn Haynal – James Madison University
Debating Experience: 4 years local circuit at Broad Run in High School,5 years at James Madison University
First Year Judging at the College Level
Last Updated: 2/10/12

Judge Philosophy:

I was primarily a 2a/1n as a debater and have run a pretty broad range of arguments across the spectrum from policy to K on a regular basis, primarily more policy oriented.


1. Paperless debate – I made the switch to paperless debate last year and understand the irritations that can come from being a paperless team as well as debating against them. Prep time stops when you pull the flash drive from your computer. All people involved in the debate should stop prepping at that moment.
2. Prep Time: I will keep the official prep time. However, I may not notice when you’re done so make sure you tell me and keep your own time.
3. Play nice. Debate is a game and a community activity, I expect you to be excited and into the round while you’re debating, but there’s no need to be rude to your partner or the other team. I generally keep a pretty straight face through rounds, but if the round starts headed in an overly negative direction, you better believe that will influence my opinion of you and influence your speaker points. Stay focused and intense but try and remember to have some fun.
4. Speaking: Speed is fine, as long as it includes clarity and fluctuation over rapid-fire no breaks spreading. Make sure to slow down on tags and try your best to keep arguments numbered, or its possible some of them will slip by unnoticed. If you want higher speaks you’ll remember that I’m human and while I tend to evalute who won debates based on line by line clarification, it is your overviews and warrants and decision calculus/role of the ballot that will guide my decisions and points.

Specific Arguments:

The K: I think that K debates are very interesting, particularly as they relate to the specific affirmative or topic literature. However, I was not a philosophy major and while I’m familiar with a lot of arguments, do not assume I know the inner workings of whatever K you happen to be running. a couple qualifiers: 1. Make sure you establish a clear link between your kritik and the affirmative. 2. Impact it out. It’s great if you have a link, but if I don’t hear the impact, the rest of the shell is unlikely to matter- at the end of the debate I need to know if you are going for the alt how it functions or if the k has morphed into a case turn, ect. 3. I really prefer that they be at least based in a discussion with a link to the resolution, otherwise I may be more persuaded by framework arguments.
Framework- I really enjoy framework debates when done well. I like to hear about what type of standards we are setting for debate expectations, how we should engage the resolution, fairness v edu v predictability hierarchy, ect. I like them to be impacted out as to what type of arguments should be in debate and why, particularly compared to your opponents interpretation.

Topicality: T is about competing interpretations. Provide a sound interpretation, a clear violation, and impact it. I want to know why your interp is better for debate, what kind of affs and ground it justifies and what is uniquely abusive about the affs plantext (I think having some kind of stable plan-text or advocacy is also pretty important for clash and constructive, educational debate). T also exists to establish fair ground. It’s ok to take a different perspective and/or use a different style of argument, but I believe that you should have to affirm the resolution to provide some predictable neg ground. As far as RVIs or args like T is genocidal/silencing/dehum… It will take some work to convince me why this is true, as I genuinely think that having fair ground is probably a prereq to receiving good education in a competitive activity.

DAs: You should have a solid link and internal link to your disad. Impact calc here is going to be important; I need to know why your impact(s) outweighs the entirety of the aff. Explain and extend the warrants involved well. To o/w the aff, good case defense and offense that jives with the DA/cp will go extraordinarily far.

Politics: something I’m not really a huge fan of, but I obviously have ran it and it is a part of debate. Be very clean on the link story here and make sure the shell is well constructed. If it is confusing on how the story jives I will probably be sympathetic towards the aff. if its political capital or bipart k or dems k, ect, that story should translate across the shell.

Theory: I will be hard-pressed on why a theory argument would mean reject the team as opposed to just the argument, unless you do that work for me. I’ve ran multiple/contradicting/conditional worlds as a debater, so I am open to that, however, it doesn’t mean I won’t still vote on theory, so be prepared to get in a heavy theory debate to justify it if necessary. While I originally have been more sold when provided with specific in round abuse (which will still only help you), I’ve become more open to potential abuse as a voter, as long as it is well warranted. That being said, try and keep it clean, for any voters on theory a lot will come down to offense/defense.

Cplans: counterplans supported by specific solvency evidence and with some kinda external net benefit, be it a DA/k or case offense/defense are great. I really enjoy these debates especially with a good case debate. It kinda kills me to hear agent cp debates that come down to questions of agent solvency (courts cps come to mind). I really enjoy creative/adv cps though.
Perms, theory, the like are all part of that territory though, so just explain yourself well.

Performance: I’m open to it. I always find these debates interesting to watch and certainly educational, however, if you are doing something that falls extremely outside of a resolutional debate, I need a well warranted reason why that discussion needs to happen inside of a debate round. It will help you greatly to explain the implications of your performance to me and make your role of the ballot arguments justified based on a connection to the team you are debating or the topic.

Debate has always been a community I have loved being a part of, for better or worse. I have met most of the smartest/interesting/caring people I know because of it and as a member and now judge I hope to continue to support making this activity something everyone else in it loves to be a part of as well, so remember to enjoy the people you meet and push the limits of your creative thinking.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision
BingHmptJV3LibertEdwards27.8Gregoire27.7CUNY Baroudi27.5Jackson27.6AFF
BingHmptNovDoubWCSUBarsalou0Mullally0CrnlGould0Zuckerman0AFF 2-1 (AFF)
BingHmptNovOctoLibertBridwell0Laremore0CrnlDong0Matos0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
BingHmptJVQurtCrnlFurman0Yoon0UMass Peterson0Ryan0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
LibertyJVSemiRichmondBorwick0Shahzad0UMWChen0Greene0NEG 2-1 (NEG)
WestPtNov1LibertHolland26.5Vander Pluym27CrnlDong27.5Matos27NEG
WestPtOpen2CUNY Baroudi28Jackson28LibertTroxclair29Warren28.5NEG
WestPtJV3CrnlChen27.5Victor27CUNY Glysantseva28Torre27.5NEG
WestPtNov6MUFeldstein26Halwagy26.5CUNY Francis 26Segnan26.5NEG
WestPtNovOctoLibertAharrah0Simmons0CrnlDong0Matos0NEG 2-1 (NEG)
WestPtNovQurtLibertMurray0Walker0CUNY Cedeno0McIntyre0AFF 2-1 (AFF)
NavyNov7VandyPelaschier27.9van der Walt27.6LibertBridwell27.8Laremore27.7AFF
NavyOpen8CUNY Cheung28.7Jackson28.6LibertAyodeji28.9Holguin28.8NEG
NavyOpenQurtUMWPacheco0Susko0LibertAyodeji0Holguin0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
JMUJV1LibertApthorp28Edwards28.5CUNY Fatima27Sen27.5AFF
JMUNov3VandyPelaschier27.5van der Walt27.4LibertGardner27.2Streeter27.3AFF
JMUJVOctoLibertApthorp0Edwards0BosColBartholomae0Folio0AFF 2-1 (NEG)
JMUNovQurtVandyPaulo0Young0LibertHolland0Simmons0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
MonmouthNovOctoBingGeorge0Pinchuk0LibertHilliard0Streeter0NEG 2-1 (NEG)
MonmouthNovQurtLibertEdwards0Gardner0NavyHerrera0Howe0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
MonmouthOpenFinalBosColCarlman0McCormick0GeoMasLastovica0Nichols0AFF 2-1 (AFF)
AppStateNovOctoL'VilleHodges0Lattimore0VandyPelaschier0Young0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
AppStateNovQurtLibertEdwards0Hilliard0VandyPelaschier0Young0AFF 2-1 (AFF)
WVUNovNatJVOctoLibertApthorp0Edwards0FloridPrescott0chessman0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
WVUNovNatNovSemiFloridLee0Manov0LibertMurray0Walker0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
WVUNovNatJVFinalFloridPrescott0chessman0GeoMasKwon0Lastovica0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
ADANatsNov2KentucSchladt27.5Zavala 27.6FloridKrause27.7Frank27.4NEG

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: