Kuzmenko,+Ella

Updated August 2017

**Background** Debate is a game and it's a game I really like which is why I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy it. I debated Lincoln Douglas for four years at Sammamish High School in Washington State, debated Policy for three years at NYU, and coached on the side. I'm a recent graduate and currently work as a consultant in DC which means 1) please ease into your spreading speed slowly and 2) run cool new arguments in front of me if you're testing something new and still working things out. Debate is a learning community; having me as a judge means I can give you as little or as much feedback as you like and we can bounce off as many or as little ideas as you like too. That being said, often times, running a solid stock case is often more impressive and more strategic than a shoddily thought out new idea, so choose wisely.

**Judging Preferences:**

**General Advice:** Use blocks. Don't suspend logic when using blocks. Spread out your opponent with arguments from many different angles. Be strategic. Debate well.

**ROB/ROJ/Theory:** I see debate as a game. This means two things. First, I buy that everything can and should be justified because I presume nothing walking into the room. This means, when reading a standard like "reducing xyz" or "maximizing abc", you need to justify why reducing xyz/maximizing abc is good. Don't get lazy with your warrants and don't assume I will know 1) that xyz/abc are what you think they are, 2) why they are what they are. This goes double for extensions; even and especially if your opponent drops your argument, you need to **extend claim, warrant, and impact** of your argument or else you've dropped it as well (notice the **and** <--). Second, this means I will likely not be persuaded by ROB/ROJ whose premise or internal link is assumed or largely relies on a justification outside of the debate room.

**Voters:** I think debate is a game. This means in order for me to vote for your ROB/ROJ/theory shell, you need to explain the actual abuse in the round and how your strategy specifically was affected. E.g. why is "fairness" a voting issue, what is it and what does it mean in the context of this actual room? Will new recruits really hear about this round when considering whether or not to join debate and after hearing that this debate round was unfair, decide not to join? Is it more about the principle of fairness? I've found that the most persuasive justifications tend to be those most closely linked to the very debate you've having and the very strategy you're employing (e.g. I couldn't read my nuke waste disad and that destroys my education because nuke waste is being voted on in XYZ county and we need to test out the implementation mechanism so we're better informed and I can be a more informed voter. I am very persuaded by such intelligent and contextualized arguments.

**T:** I am very persuaded by good T args. I largely agree with Scott Elliott's paradigm on T which you should definitely read: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6943.

**Speed:** 1. If you're spreading, please don't lower your voice; I will yell "louder" and this generally means "clear" but indicates you need to speak up too <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">2. I'm more impressed by debaters that speak at 60-70% of their actual speed but fill that time making good responsive arguments. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">3. If you read incoherently in order to jam in more args I will not be able to flow your args, I likely won't be able to vote for you, and will reflect the argument presentation's incoherence in your speaks.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Plans/Ks/Ts:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">There is not a position/argument I'm not comfortable with you reading, that being said if I haven't heard your argument, or even if I have but it's especially dense, slowing down and explaining it to me like I'm 10 will only help you (and your speaker points) in the long run.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Speaker** **Points:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I award speaker points based off your entire debate performance meaning your speeches and cross-examination and general demeanor. Masters of cross examination are generally great debaters because they see the cross ex as a performance and use it to set the tone of the rest of the debate.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Fun:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">This paradigm sounds serious only because I want you to understand what my expectations are in order for the round to proceed in your favor, but if you're not having fun, you're not debating properly. :-)

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">