Kostiuk,+Paula

I am currently in my second year debating for George Mason University and have competed successfully in both novice and jv. Before GMU I was a two year LD debater in the Florida Circuit.


 * General:** I try to be as flexible as possible when judging. I am not a fan of having to tailor what you are good at to please a judge. In the end I will vote on who did better debate in the round. That being said, I know every judge has their quirks…


 * Speaking:** I love speed and spreading, I think it makes debate more competitive, but be clear. I will say clear once, but after that I will stop flowing. Warrant out your cards and make your positions known. Tell me why you should win and why your impacts will outweighs theirs.


 * Evidence:** I will not call for cards at the end of a debate. I would rather you tell me what this card is and how it functions in the round. I don’t believe that the judge should try and interpret the card for you. The ONLY time I will ask for a card is if you firmly believe that the other team is abusing the card and reading it in a way that does not belong in the round. Please do not tell me the card is awesome and that I should read it just because it’s that good, if it is, defend it!


 * Cross-X:** This is valuable time, use it well! I will give you better speaks if you do and even more if I can see that you are trying to set up for future args or put your opponent in the hot seat. This is not whoever yells loudest is best, please be civil, but competitive.


 * Topicality:** Go for it. If you decide to go for T at the end of the debate spend adequate time telling me why it is an issue and impact it out. Don’t be lazy and just extend it as a time suck.


 * Theory:** As a 2A I love the Condo debate, if the neg runs competing advocacy’s and you know they are going to kick stuff, I hope you go for it. Don’t whine in the 1AR when you are stuck answering 7 off case positions and you didn’t run condo. As a Neg if you do run a whole bunch of off case, props to ya. I love seeing teams out spread the other, but be ready for the condo debate. Other theories I think are time sucks, but I will vote on them if you really tell me why it’s an issues, if they are dropped, or if you impact it out in a way that you can with the debate.


 * Counterplans:** Be ready for the perm debate. Don’t run it and not expect to hear the perms, and if you read a perm, don’t shadow extend, warrants here are key. Be clear in what your net benefits are and why you solve better. As a 2A if you think the CP is abusive, be ready to say why and how that impacts the round, don’t be a time suck. Tell me why to CP can’t solve each of your advantages and you will get my ballot.


 * Disads:** I love disads, I love politics, they make debate fun and interesting. As a neg you get to test the implications of the plan and that is awesome, but make your scenario believable! 2A- Offense Offense Offense! Make them work for the impact, or maybe your case can solve the impact. (Heg is a great way to go)


 * The K:** I have a love hate relationship with the K. I think they can be fun, ONLY if everyone in the round understands what is going on. Now there are so many K’s that it is impossible to keep up with the literature. So if you are going to read it, be clear on what you are critiquing and what the world of the alt looks like (I hate vague alts- and will vote on this if it brought up in round). AVIOD the long tags they are difficult to read fast and even worse to flow, skip the fancy stuff and get to the point, be fancy in cross-x. 2A- READ FRAMEWORK, you cannot win without it, impact it out and go for it. Tell me why the world of the alt cannot solve the impacts of the aff.


 * Critical Affs:** If you read a plan text and defend implementation, awesome. If not, I am probably not the person to be in the back of the room.


 * Project Teams:** I think this style could be really awesome, but defend your advocacy. I am NOT a fan of narratives though, I think they are bad for debate and create a lot of uncomfortable situations. Please be nice to each other in these rounds, they can be emotional, but we can debate without being offensive. I think having debates about who has been oppressed more is useless and problematic because I don’t think that I should eliminate one person’s voice in favor of another.

If you have any specific questions, just ask me before the round and I will be happy to answer!