Sokoloski,+Elena

Hi, all-

Background: I'm currently a freshman at Harvard University, planning to study government with a secondary in environmental studies and French. I am in the Harvard College Debating Union, as well as a weekly mentor for students in the Boston Debate League. I graduated from Maumee High School in Ohio, where I competed in LD on the local circuit and attended NCFLs, NFLs, and the Stanford invitational. I have judging and coaching experience in LD, PF, and policy.

Paradigm: **//This is how a debate would proceed in my perfect world. I understand that this is not (nor should it be) my perfect world, and I will judge the round as you tell me to, using values, criterions, and arguments as you ask. Just be aware that I will be super impressed and really happy if you follow something that resembles this paradigm.//** I prefer traditional styles of debate to the more progressive ones when judging LD and PF. (Anything goes in policy). This means no plans/counterplans, kritics, or theories, please, though if you feel that the round merits such a style for some extraordinary reason, I am open to hearing that reason, with the accompanying case, during your speeches. In LD, I prefer use of a value and criterion. The winning criterion is the way that I will weigh all the arguments that you make in the round, so explaining why your criterion is the best at fulfilling the value (or the most integral step to doing so) or why your points still work with your opponent's criterion is **paramount**. Some context for my preferences with the criterion: 1) If you argue that your case prevents genocide, and your opponent argues that their case is more economical, then the criterion will decide which point I ultimately decide to flow. With a winning criterion of "protecting life," you would win that point. With a winning criterion of "economic development," your opponent would win, and your point would be discounted. 2) If you feel that you uphold your opponent's criterion just as well/better than they do, then it's fine to adopt one criterion for the round. If the debaters concur that "minimizing suffering" is the paramount criterion, then all arguments will be evaluated and scored based on how well they "minimize suffering."
 * //tl;dr criterions are important//**

In PF, I like it when you use a weighing mechanism (cross apply the genocide example) to tell me how to weigh and extend your arguments.

Preferences: //**These are also suggestions, but they're much stronger ones, and more concerned with how well I hear and understand you than how much I like what you're arguing. Follow these**// 1) Speed: I prefer a more conversational pace, and can easily follow the faster end of that conversational spectrum, but please DO NOT spread. I think that debate is about communication, and that it takes a highly skilled debater to communicate certain points concisely, conversationally, and artfully. 2) Road maps: Do these, please. They're off time, so I won't start the clock until you begin your actual speech, but they will help me follow the order of your speech. 3) KVIs: Do these, also: They show me that you understand what the big issues in the round are, and they condense the round in a way that a lot of other methods cannot. 4) Signposting: This is super cool. Tell me explicitly that you're discussing contention 1, subpoint a, or warrant three on the criterion. 5) Cards: Slow down for the author if you plan to refer to the card by the author's name later on, that way I can flow it! 6) PLEASE REMAIN RESPECTFUL: I'm sure that the vast majority of you reading this don't need to be told to remain respectful in round, but it's included anyways. This means during CX, in the way in which you refer to your opponent's arguments in rebuttals, and the facial expressions that you shouldn't make while your opp is speaking.

Overall, I'm excited about judging, and if you have any questions further than these, please ask! Best of luck :)