Krawczyk,+Steven

Coral Springs High School '14 University of Chicago '18 Feel free to email me about specific questions I didn't answer here, or to ask me about past rounds that I've judged: steventkrawczyk@uchicago.edu


 * Conflicts **: Coral Springs High School, Cory You (NCSSM)


 * Super short version:** I'm fine with speed, I'm up to date on common arguments on the circuit, I won't vote on explicitly offensive/marginalizing arguments.


 * __Full Version__**


 * Summary:** I try to be a blank slate, these are just my defaults if you don't make arguments to change them. This space is more yours than mine so don't let my preferences dictate what you do, they should only inform how you do it if you want to get my ballot. Don't make offensive arguments. I am okay with flex prep. CX is binding. Feel free to ask me anything before the round.


 * For flashing evidence or whatever**: Email chains are ideal. If you wanna flash or pass paper instead that's also fine. I think that at a minimum you should let someone see your laptop during prep or something equivalent, but you can't just deny them access to seeing your case.

**Speaks:** I "start" at about a 28. I've given 30s. I try to stay above 26.5, and won't give lower than a 25 (I have in the past but I figure I probably shouldn't). If you want good speaks be original.


 * Speed ****: **Speed is fine. I'm sort of self-conscious about misspelling author names in written RFDs (or just getting them completely wrong), so if you could go at a conversational pace when you say the name of your authors that would be very appreciated. I'll call for anything that I need to have verbatim if I didn't flow it as such.


 * Weighing: ** A lot of debaters will have weighing arguments embedded in their case or will have a lot of "This comes first" arguments, but that often reduces to both debaters telling me a different argument comes first for conceded reasons without any clash. For the best results, make your weighing specific to their arguments and have a lot of even-if type responses. Chances are, you aren't winning terminal defense against every point your opponent is going for, so tell me why I should vote for you even if I'm giving their arguments some credence. Please avoid making blippy weighing arguments in an overview and expecting me to apply those arguments to every relevant part of the flow.


 * CX: **I flow CX and like when debaters actually use it to make arguments (that doesn't mean that clarification is bad, just that it wouldn't be strategic to use all of your CX time clarifying things and not ask any real questions). I think that the worst thing you can do is respond "you can make that argument" when someone asks you a question (because, they are making that argument by asking the question, and you're supposed to respond to it). Depending on the context, I might interpret telling you're opponent that they can make an argument as a concession.


 * Framework: **I really enjoy a good framework debate and feel like there aren't enough in-depth framework debates anymore. However, don't think that this means reading a bunch of recycled framework cards will win you the ballot. //I default to using the framework that is ahead to evaluate the round//, as opposed to using epistemic modesty (EM). I would use EM if a debater advocated for it. Also, if you're doing something unique like asking me to filter offense from one to framework through a second framework, then you'll need to do a decent amount of work showing what arguments function under this framing and what arguments don't.


 * Kritiks: **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">I'm pretty familiar with most k lit and anything I haven't heard before I should be able to pick up assuming the person running it knows what it says and can explain it. Don't use the K as a way to confuse your opponent <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">. I would prefer if link wasn't something super generic. Further, I think that a lot of impact arguments aren't explained very well and use the rhetoric of continental philosophy to sound really important without debaters actually knowing what's going on. NOTE: Saying the phrase "role of the ballot" does not magically give your argument external impacts; I expect you to have justifications for why this role of ballot is good for me as a judge/educator to endorse.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">**Performance + Other Non-traditional forms of debate:** I think that it's really important to justify the performance and its meaning, and specifically to weigh these arguments against framework/theory/T arguments that your opponent makes. When responding to more creative positions like performance, make sure to also compare impacts beyond "theory frames their access to the performance," and focus on the tangible impacts of fairness vs the RoB (this also goes for Ks, but I think it's important to emphasize it here).


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Theory: **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">I think a nuanced theory debate can be just as entertaining as an engaging substance debate as long as it's not being used as a way to outlayer the other debater and completely avoid clash. If you are a good theory debater feel free to go all out, I don't have any negative feelings towards frivolous theory that's well-justified. I hesitate to list defaults because you should be doing that work, not expecting me to fill in the gaps. Please tell me how reasonability/competing interps functions in terms of evaluating the theory debate (I would probably default competing interps in the absence of a good explanation).


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Topicality: **<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> To start, I don't assume that the resolution is necessary unless its necessity goes uncontested. I default to thinking T is a matter of competing interpretations, and by that I mean debaters need to have offensive reasons why their definition or why being topical at all is important in the round. I think that T needs to be weighed against a role of the ballot argument that allows for or requires non-topical positions.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; line-height: 20px;">- Religious Cases: I'm fine with them and I'm with "religious cases bad" theory. I won't intervene in favor of or against these cases, so you can cite this part of my paradigm when responding to theory if you want. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; line-height: 20px;">- Bracketing: It's fine. I really hate brackets bad theory unless the bracketing is a violation of evidence ethics. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; line-height: 20px;">- Avoid arguments that cite things that I can't verify (eg facebook messages, interactions outside of rounds, behavior in past rounds) <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">- I see perms as a test of competition.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; line-height: 20px;">Specific Issues: **