Kelinsky,+Andrew


 * Experience:** 3 Years in LD at Loyola High School; yes, I went to camp.


 * Speed:** I can handle it. Two caveats: 1) I don’t like “super speed” and 2) if you are going to fly through your case, tell me before the round starts. However, slow down for tags, author names, and one-line arguments (a.k.a. blips), but you can speed through evidence as long as you clearly state the warrant and/or internal warrant(s). Any cross-applications and extensions must be clear as to where I am supposed to flow them and what they do for you. If you go too fast, I will miss things. If you are unclear – I will let you know by saying “clear” or “slow-down” – and receive multiple warnings – including in different speeches i.e. once in the AC and once in the 1AR – I will dock your speaks. Bottom line, it is your job to make sure that I hear what you want me to hear. If I miss something it’s your fault.


 * Case Construction:** I’m open to any type of case/position, but I come from a framework heavy background. I know how to handle traditional cases – i.e. value, VC, contentions; plans - better than K’s and positions that indict a debater for a specific action or position like attacking moral skepticism by criticizing the morality of the position itself by arguing that the holocaust was unjust/not moral…no shit. I enjoy “tricks,” but not stupidity. For example, making a 5 second argument in the AC and turning into an a priori in the 1AR is not strategy or good debate. With that said, extending a conceded definition that excludes opponent ground is totally legit.


 * Case Content:** I prefer substantive positions to philosophy heavy stuff. I am not well read in philosophy. That’s not to say don’t run philosophical positions, because I find them interesting, you just have to do more work/a better job explaining to me how arguments function and what the arguments are. If you run a philosophical position and do so successfully, you will be rewarded with higher speaker points.


 * Topicality/Theory:** I am not a fan of theory or topicality. However, if you run theory or T to run them, I will (most likely) dock your speaks. Think of my threshold for theory and T as an inverse relationship. The more I think actual abuse occurs, the lower my threshold is. Theory and T are positions that check abuse when real abuse is occurring. I am hesitant to vote on potential abuse. But, if abuse occurs and you run theory or T and your opponent drops or de-links from the procedural violation, I am still very willing to listen and to vote on your shell. Ground is really the only standard that warrants abuse; and the better you can explain why the ground you’re losing is absolutely necessary, the more likely I am to agree with your abuse story. Remember, the better extended the argument; the easier it is to vote on like any other argument. I default that theory or T is pre-standards, but if you tell me it is not and warrant your argument, I will not place it a priori to case. Respond to theory arguments as you wish. I am more receptive to reasonability, but if you want your response to be offensive, it should be competing interpretations. In short, your shells should pass my “BS Test.”


 * A Priori’s:** I will vote on a priori arguments that are well developed, but will (probably) drop your speaks.


 * Presumption:** I presume affirmative because of time-skew. I am open to arguments from the negative about why I should presume negative. I only vote on presumption when there is literally nowhere on the flow that I cannot find offense or a risk of offense. (I will vote for a risk of offense over presumption any day.)


 * Paradigm:** I am as tabula rossa as possible. I default comparative worlds. I will listen to any framework/position as long as it is warranted. If you fail to compare criterions and/or weigh and evaluate arguments, I will regard your arguments as unimportant. The exception is if both you and your opponent do not do the above things; I will intervene to make a decision.


 * Extensions:** Extensions should be clear and contain a claim, warrant, impact, and function. I have a higher threshold for extensions than most judges. If the warrant is not extended, the argument does not exist. If the impact and function/weighing analysis is not extended, the argument does nothing for you.


 * Winning:** I will vote for whoever is “winning on the flow.”


 * Etiquette:** Don't be a jerk, it is not persuasive. Ask questions before or after rounds. Don't argue with me after rounds.


 * Speaks:** Typically, you start at a 27; if you impress me, your speaks go up, but if you disappoint me, they go down. I award speaker points based on décor, presence, strategy - weighted the most heavily - and signposting well. I tend to give low speaks.


 * Finally:** Have fun! Debate is a game, not life or death.