Kalinoski,+Cati

She/Her/Herself Dowling Catholic High School (Des Moines, Iowa) ‘15 NYU, Tisch School of the Arts (New York City, New York) ‘19 = =

*Updated for Glenbrooks '17


 * __ 5 minutes before the round version: __** Make your ballot story clear, preferably by setting up the layers of the debate for me. Make full extensions. I'll yell clear if you're too fast, but please only go 75% speed when spreading.

__** Please ask me questions before the round. **__

__** About me: **__ I debated on both the national and local circuits from 2012-2015. I am currently studying performance studies and design in theater/everyday performance at NYU. I don’t coach anyone, and don't work on topics extensively when they come out so I'm not 100% on recent topic lit. //I view this space as educational, always. **Performance matters.**//

__** Specifics: **__


 * __Extensions:__ ** Make //full// extensions always!!!

**__Speed:__** I flow on my computer, but I’m not the best. I’d suggest going about 75% if you're super fast to make sure I get everything (yes, you may have to skip your last card). This is more for you than for me, so consider if me missing your ev is worth that Bostrom card I won't vote on anyway.

**__Ks:__** This was my favorite kind of debate in high school, but please make it a good debate. Make the link clear, tell me exactly how the alt solves, and take care in constructing your ROB. For more particulars on these kinds of debates… __ROB:__ Make this section CRYSTAL CLEAR. I’m sick of generic ROBs. Fix it. __AFF Ks:__ I’m picky. I loved K affs, but they really need to be done right. It starts with a clear ROB. Outline burdens of the neg. Make your solvency claims clear, otherwise I won’t vote on it. If you're choosing to nontopical, do it, but be ready for the T debate. __Topicality:__ I actually really enjoy a good non-topical K (aff or neg). All I ask is that the link is thoroughly explained and you give me a clear reason to vote for you. A “good” nontopical K is something to the effect of a high theory K, not a “give me 30 speaks” arg. __Ks of Debate:__ Depending on how they’re done, maybe. Don’t advocate for an abolition of debate- which I devoted a lot of time in my life to, poured my soul into, and has helped me in almost every area of my life- but I'll admit debate needs some changing. Tell me why. Tell me why that means you get a ballot. __Performance__**__:__** Willing and able to listen to them. ROBs are extra important here. Will admit to not knowing as much about this branch of K lit and very open to counter-K’s. Personally, want't the biggest fan of militarizing my identity in a new way in an overly political space, but will evaluate your identity as offense if you ask me to and justify why. __Kritikal Plans:__ Do it. __Perms:__ I assume they're a test of competition unless you WARRANT why they are an advocacy statement. I will not take just "I win the perm so I win the round." Tell me why your perm means I should vote for you, structurally speaking. __Notes on K Lit:__ I will call for cards. If you are reading something I’m familiar with and mess it up, I will only vote on what is said in round but give you a talking-to after the round. If you completely misunderstand what the argument is and misrepresent an author I know, I reserve the right to drop you. If you are reading something that doesn't make sense immediately in the 1AC or is unclear about the implications, then I am very open to "new 2NR args after contextualization in the 1AR" args. The reasons why they get new in the 2NR need to be warranted, but I'm open to them. Topics that I'm particularly well-versed in: Queer Theory, Feminist Theory, D&G, Butler, Baudrillard.


 * __ Theory: __** I like theory a lot more as a judge than I did as a debater, though I thoroughly believe that theory debates are where big pictures ideas and crystallization are most important. I think they are interesting debates, if done well which means that you need to not just do the line by line work but you need to be clear in your signposting, your interactions, your impacts to arguments, and provide something away from the line-by-line on how I should evaluate the round. Don’t make dumb theory args. Just do standards/voter comparisons, for the love of all that is good. **Also, suggestion, go a little slower** ( especially on the analysis that I can't just call after the round) since it is usually much quicker than other forms of debate. As a side note, K vs. Theory debates are some of my favorite kinds of debates and impact weighing on that level is the most interesting part of this debate. I meets are rarely an interesting strat for me, but if you think you can win it then do it.

**__T:__** Love T. Do it. See above.

**__Defaults:__** Ks and theory on same level, truth-testing, counter-interps, no RVIs, drop the argument, education over fairness. I don’t like going to my defaults, just make these arguments for me. Don’t make me do this work.

**__General Policy Args:__** Please go slower, not only on the plan text, but on entire debate. I love these debates when done well, but they require more explaining for me as opposed to a regular policy judge. I am usually not as clear about the functions of these arguments in LD vs. Policy all the time since you have so many other layers (hopefully) happening in the round.

**__Plans:__** I like good plan debates, but not as comfortable judging them as other forms of arguments, just be super clear about impacts and frameworks. Also, I will probably give you higher speaks if I like your plan, so run something interesting!

**__CPs:__** They’re cool, refer to the plans section above. If running against a non-plan aff explain why that’s okay.

**__Frameworks:__** I like framework debate a lot, but it’s easy to get messy. Make this a big part of your crystallization if it was a big part of the round. I hate sitting in front of a good but unresolvable framework round. Also, I don't hate deont, which is apparently a thing people believe of me :)

**__Skep:__** Won’t vote for it.

**__Presumption:__** If I have to. Not very original, so you’ll get low speaks, probably. I want to hear substance.

**__Speaks:__** I do speaks as a combination of strategy and overall performance. The performance aspect of it comes in through tone. Basically, I reserve the right to drop your speaks significantly if you’re a dick in round to your opponent. This is especially important if you are hitting someone a lot worse than you. Make every round educational. If I walk out of the room feeling smarter for being there, you will get higher speaks. Also, included in my version of strategy, is interesting argumentation. If I like what you read and you were able to explain it in a polite and thorough way, your speaks will go up. I average around at 28.5, I’d assume, but I’ve never done the math to back that up. If you're good, expect high speaks. My scale is 27-30. 30s aren’t impossible, and I'm known to give double 30s if a round is very good and I feel you both should advance to far outrounds. I reserve the right to drop your speaks if you are offensive, and if bad enough I will drop you. I reserve the right to drop your speaks if you botch a person's work that I am familiar with.

__**Dropped Args:**__ Absent weighing as to why they don't matter, dropped/conceded args are true and have 100% SOL to me.

__** Other notes: **__ //**__I take a while to create my RFD/write stuff on the ballot/frame in my mind what I'm going to say__**//, so don’t leave the room before I’m done because I will disclose. Also, I know in difficult rounds people can get impatient, but please give me time. I don’t care what you wear, be comfortable, but please wear shoes :) __I’m not coaching anyone so I’m not familiar with the topic lit.__ Make your advocacies EXTRA CLEAR. This may mean I will call for more cards that might not have as much to do with the final decision.  Don’t assume you know anything about me. This is a life thing.  If there is an evidence dispute I will look up the NSDA rules and abide by them.  Feel free to email me at catikalinoski@gmail.com with questions before a tournament. Also, I'm on facebook so message me!  Also, please reach out to me after the tournament if you need help. I am on TDC Effect, but also am just able to help you if you need someone to explain a crazy theory or plan. I am not available for full-time coaching, but am always here to help out and make the community a better more inclusive space.

Conflicts: Dowling Catholic HS