Kasinki,+Devin

Background: I competed in LD for four years at Newburgh Free Academy. I also occasionally did Policy and PF. While I mostly stayed on the local circuit, I did go to the TOC my senior year.


 * LD Paradigm:** (see below for Policy)

In short, I am open to any argument. Just tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. There were a lot of arguments that I wasn’t a huge fan of when I was debating but I don’t think that I should be the one to tell you what to run. With that in mind, here are a couple of things you should know about me as a judge.

Speed: If its the first or second round in the tournament, don't go full speed. I probably haven't judged in a few weeks, or even months and will be getting used to people speaking that quickly again. Otherwise, I usually don't have any trouble flowing speed.

Framework: Be comparative. A value-criterion structure is not necessary, but it is the style I am most familiar with. If you aren't using a value-criterion structure, make sure you are very clear about how I should weigh the round. Absent a clear framework at the end of the round I will default to a net-benefit calculus.

Theory: I don't like it, but I do think that it is a necessary check on abuse. If you can win the round without going for theory, you will be better off with speaks. As long as you aren't running completely ridiculous theory, my dislike of theory will probably not affect you in any way.

-When evaluating theory, I default to what I would call competing interpretations. However, I will not drop a debater for not having an explicitly stated counter-interp if they are only trying to prove interp bad. I will presume that their counter-interp is the inverse of your interpretation. I know that this is not how competing interpretations usually works, but I find it is ridiculous that people lose for not reading a counter-interp (especially in the 1ar) when they are explaining why the arguments they are running aren't abusive. If you have theory run on you, you still need to be comparative, I just don't think that it is important to state your counter-interp unless it is different than the inverse of your opponent's interpretation.

-I will NOT vote for you if I do not understand the violation part of your shell. This really goes for any argument, but its especially true here. If I don't know how your opponent is violating the interp, why should I care if you're ahead on every other part of the theory flow.

-I'm probably more willing to listen to 'RVIs bad' than other judges. Its not that I won't vote for them, I just think they're dumb.

Kritiks: I like kritiks, but I am not well-versed in most of the literature. However, I have found that good K debaters are able to explain their position well so I’m willing to listen to them.

Narratives: Do not spread through the narrative part of your case. I find it very disingenuous and will dock speaks. It is fine to spread through your narratives good evidence/ the rest of the case but just don't spread through the actual narrative.

Other policy-esque arguments: I used to believe that these had to be run exactly as they were in policy but I don't care about that so much any more as long as you can explain the argument to me.

Cross-ex: CX is binding. I will not allow debaters to end their cross-ex early and add the leftover time to their prep (unless tournament rules explicitly say that it is okay). If you want to ask questions during prep that is fine as long as your opponent agrees to it.

Paperless debate: I'm a big fan of it. Just make sure everything is easily accessible in case your opponent asks for something.

Speaks: 27.5 is average. 28.5+ means that I think you deserve to break. I do not expect to go below 26 unless you do something rude or argue with me after the round. If your points are lower than that for some other reason, I will explain why as clearly as possible. I tend to give higher speaks to people running unique positions.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round, or on facebook. Also, please keep in mind that this is a work in progress. As I judge more rounds my preferences may change so please check here or ask me about any changes in my paradigm before the round.


 * Policy Paradigm**:

Like in LD, there are certainly things that I would rather not see in a Policy debate. However, that will not have any impact on how I judge the round. I will evaluate the round as a policy maker choosing between two competing options unless you tell me otherwise. The only other advice I can give you is debate well.

One thing I will ask for is that you read everything loud enough for me to hear you. I have seen a lot of policy debaters get very quiet when they read the texts of cards. I know why they're doing this, but I would like to hear what each card is saying rather than what the tag says about the card. I will yell louder a couple of times if you do this, but if it becomes an issue I will dock speaks.