Kate+Totz

 I'm the head coach of forensics at Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies and do a lot of freelance circuit judging and coaching. Current student at UCLA. Debated in LD and PF for 3 years on and off circuit for Maple Grove High School in Minnesota (graduated 2015). Big proponent of accessibility and diversity in debate.

**tldr; I'll flow whatever, fine with speed but please email chain me ( ktotz173@gmail.com ), here for good, engaging debate throughout the round, well-run K's, and legit T. Not here for anything blatantly offensive, T as strat or time spikes, or unimpacted args.**

LONG VERSION General: I'm a flow judge who's comfortable with policy and philosophy debates, I truly believe that each debate should be what the debaters want it to be, so I'll flow pretty much anything said in round. Comfortable with speed, but will clear for enunciation and unclear taglines/authors. 2 free clears before I start to drop speaks. I evaluate on a very specific top-down approach: first on T to decide what the round framing debate looks like, then onto remaining framing arguments to get an idea of ground and ultimate link, finally onto contention/adv/disad level to see impacts through framing. I'M VERY BIG ON IMPACTING OUT ARGUMENTS ON EVERY LEVEL PLS WARRANT AND IMPACT.

On T: Comfortable with most T, but would prefer not to vote solely on T (but I will always flow and weigh it). In general, I tend towards education and accessibility as the highest T standards and drop the arg. Not huge on disclosure T unless there's a legit violation that puts someone at a disadvantage. I don't necessarily buy T as risk-free offense unless you explicitly tell me why a shell should be risk-free (and even then it's an uphill battle for me). Kind of hate RVIs in LD, just think of T as higher level debate ground and we'll be on the same page. Will flow presumptions but they have very little weight to me.

On K: I love good K debate as long as it's responsive in the round, usually down to vote only on K and willing to entertain pretty much any K. Def have a soft spot for well-run K's (used to run a lot of case formatted Ks).

On Disads: Go for it, I've never seen I disad I didn't flow. There's a special place in my heart for extremely well-linked disads that are case-responsive. But please for the love of god impact out to framing or at least impact to something.

On Framing: I'm extremely liberal when it comes to framing and ground debate, so feel free to get creative on framing. I'd like to have some kind of standard (what can I say, I'm a softie for traditional-esque arguments). Very rarely will I find a definition unfair due to ground because when you have the same topic for a couple months, at some point you have to adjust to more specific debates. Would much rather see competing interp debates on the framing level rather than the T level.

On Case: Honestly, feel free to do whatever you want in terms of offense/defense. Aff Ks, aff plans, aff preempts, neg advs, neg plans/CPs... I'm here for whatever you want to do. Cards are great, but so are analytics. Just please impact to something and makes extensions.

On Speaks: just be sure to enunciate, signpost, and clash and you should be fine. Bonuses for making me laugh, making me think, using meta arguments well, calling out something as meta, sassy cx (note: this is NOT the same as rude cx), and for good and casual analogies as needed.

Any questions about debate, me as a judge, or life in general? Email me at ktotz173@gmail.com or hit me up pre-round.