Stasaski,+Katie

I debated LD for 2 years at Keller High School competing on both the local (TFA) and national circuit. I graduated from the George Washington University in 2016, where I did Policy for 3 years, British Parliamentary for 2 years, and public debate for 4 years. I'm currently a computer science Ph.D. student at UC Berkeley.

First, some general pointers. I try not to intervene when it comes to my role as a judge. I'm fine with any argument or style of debate you're comfortable with as long as you explain to me how your arguments interact in the round.

**Weighing impacts** is essential. If you don't do the work in-round to weigh, I'll be forced to intervene and your speaks will suffer. I feel like this happens most in Clash of Civs debates. I prefer clear articulations of impacts in these rounds - e.g. what does the K give you that a topical aff wouldn't, or what education type is exclusive to a topical aff. A pet peeve of mine is when debates are like two ships passing in the night, so be sure to weigh your arguments against your opponent's.

**Speed:** Speed won't be a problem for me, as long as you are clear. Don't sacrifice clarity for the sake of getting a few extra words in. I will yell clear or louder once or twice but after that, your speaker points will be docked and I'll fault you if I don't flow an argument due to clarity issues. Also, don't spread through a massive block of analytics or theory. Give appropriate breaks to write and please read slow enough to allow me to flow your interp! I will dock your speaks if you are being unnecessarily fast against a debater who is clearly more inexperienced - use common sense and be courteous if it is obvious you are better and don't need to spread.

**Speaks:** I cater speaker points on the tournament I am at and base them off of strategy and style. If you utilize CX, your speaks will go up. Your speaks are likely to be higher if you are kind and courteous to your opponent and me as a judge. My pet peeve is when debaters are rude or assholes in round, but doing this will only affect your speaker points.

**Misc:** I've outlined specifics about the ways I evaluate LD and policy below.
 * Prep time stops when the speech doc has been assembled. If you take a suspiciously long time to flash/email/share your speech doc, I will dock speaks harshly and call you out on it.
 * I haven't judged at all this year, and have judged primarily policy the past 4 years, so don't assume I know topic-specific nuances.
 * I like to be included on email chains - katstasaski [at] gmail. If you have any specific questions, feel free to email me or ask me before round.
 * Have fun! :)

**LD** **Resolution:** I default to a truth-testing view of debate where the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the neg's is to prove it false. I'd prefer some standard or weighing mechanism to view the round. I'm fine with philosophically heavy frameworks, as long as you have warrants for them and can explain how your offense links. I've ran non-topical and semi-topical affirmatives in the past, so I'm fine with non-topical K's, but be ready to explain why you couldn't have run a topical affirmative on this topic. **Extentions:** When you extend a piece of evidence, you need to extend the warrant, not only the claim. If a piece of evidence goes conceded, your extention can be short and sweet, but you still need to extend the warrant. If you shadow-extend and blow up an argument in the 2AR, I'm unlikely to give it a lot of weight. **Theory/T:** Theory or topicality needs to be in the form of a shell with an interp, violation, and voters. If you just tell me why your opponent is being unfair without any explanation of what I should do in terms of the ballot, I will probably disregard the argument. You need to be super clear on if the implication is drop the debater, drop the argument, etc. I default to theory is NOT an RVI unless reasons are made for why I should allow them. I default competing interps, but feel free to make arguments for reasonability. I defualt drop the argument. My defaults only come into play if no arguments stating otherwise are made in-round. **Kritiks:** Please be able to explain what your K is saying. I was a kritikal policy debater and I love kritiks, but if you can't give a clear, concise explanation of what your argument is saying, please don't run a K. I prefer links that specific to the aff being run, not the resolution, but I will listen to either. Moreover, I'm not a fan of rejection alts, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on them. Just be ready to explain why your K negates and answer theoretical objections. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Plans, DAs, and CPs:** I am fine with these types of arguments in LD. When I debated LD, I ran a lot of plans and DAs, and I also ran them on the policy circuit. I think a good LARP debate is awesome. However, if you do choose to engage in this type of debate, justify your framework! You need to do the work to justify util if you have extension impacts - it is not a given in my book. I also recognize that these type of arguments are run different in LD vs Policy, so don't assume that just because I did policy that I won't listen to T.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Policy** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Topicality:** I'm fine with topicality and theory, as long as you are doing all of the work for me to vote on it. I default to competing interpretations. Also, be sure to weigh strength of link to education and fairness. Weigh your standards against any counterstandards. Nothing is more annoying than multiple undisputed standards with no impact analysis. Also, if you choose to run ASPEC, you should ask the opposing team to specify an agent in CX. If they fail to specify one and are being abusive, then you can think about running ASPEC. I'm not a fan of petty theory arguments, so if you're adding a random 30 second shell into your 6-off, probably not worth it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Ks:** I was a kritikal debater and I'm fine with evaluating K's in debate. That being said, please be able to explain what your K is saying. Don't run a kritik if you don't understand what it is saying. If you can't clearly and concisely summarize your kritik, you shouldn't run one in front of me. I also prefer links that are specific to the affirmative, not the resolution, but I'll listen to either. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**CPs:** I'm down with CPs, but if you read a consult CP, there'd better be a damn good reason why. I'd prefer CPs to be uber specific to the aff's plan and have a solid solvency advocate.