Hatziavramidis,+Kat

__Kat Hatziavramidis__-Debated for Kansas State and Texas Ex., now coaching for Wake Experience: NDT bid team (1st round in 1 semester), 10th speaker, @ NDT, etc. College Coaching Experience: University of North Texas, University of Texas, Wake Forest High School Coaching Experience: Creekview High School, Valley High School (TOC), Various institutes Have been debating and/or coaching for 12+ years

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY

-I consider myself very lenient, in terms of what arguments I will listen to and/or vote on. I ran Disads, CPs, and Ks, as well as lots of procedural arguments (T and other stuff). I will listen to virtually anything covered here that is an argument. If you can coherently explain to me why reading poetry is an argument, great. But, if all you do is read it, not so great, unless you just like reading poetry in debate rounds. I have been heavily influenced by some of the best theory, CP/DA/Case, T, and K coaches in the country, so I'm VERY open-minded and love watching y'all execute what YOU want to do in front of me. I'm down.

-I WILL vote for any of the following arguments, if well-developed: -Specification/T arguments (please slow down/be clear for analytics and make it a well-developed arg.) -Virtually any CP, Ks, DAs/case turns, etc. -I also love GOOD theory args and will listen to both sides and vote on them. I have no proclivities that I know of, so run what you want to run, by all means. However, a bad theory debate is MUCH worse than no theory debate at all!

-Arguments I will NOT listen to (as in, I will drop my pen and, if you don't get the hint, sign my ballot and leave the room): Racism/Sexism/Homophobia good, judge (etc.)* This does NOT mean I won't listen to or vote on Politics or Brain Drain arguments (I will!).* This just means that if you literally say RACISM GOOD, you will lose in front of me. Nuanced positions about how Immigration affects the economy or whether it is a good thing, etc. are NOT the same thing as saying “racism good” and ARE arguments I will listen to and vote on easily.

-Don't steal prep time—All it does is give me less time to give you a good RFD, which is, ultimately a poor move, as I tend to be a thorough judge and because it might screw you out of the win, since you stole prep that I could have used to evaluate your argument more effectively. If you steal it, you don't have much room to complain if you dislike the RFD....perhaps I could have spent more time more carefully evaluating something if there was the appropriate time allocation in the round.

-I don't like gendered or racist language. I will listen to arguments about the issue, but one of them that I will not listen to is “gendered/racist language good.” If the argument has been made, you can answer it, and please answer it AS AN ARGUMENT. You don't apologize for not being topical, do you? Unless the team that made the argument to begin with is willing to roll with you apologizing your way out, you're probably going to need to do a little more than that in front of me. You can still DEFEAT the argument; though I'd prefer you simply not go there and, for the sake of all of us, use respectful language.

-I love variety, so please treat me as a judge who knows what she's doing, likes and understands the activity, is friendly, and will listen to and vote on nearly any argument. As I mentioned, if you can prove to me that you've made an argument, I'll listen to it. If you simply want to do an interpretive dance, I'll watch, but you'll have to explain how that makes an argument, though I'll keep my mind as open as I can. I've been coached by some of the best K coaches in the country, as well as some of the best theory, DA, CP, case turn throw-down ones, so do your thang, and I'll happily ride along.

-There is a difference between being fast and being blippy. Especially with respect to analytical arguments (theory, A-Spec, T, etc.) and theory arguments, SLOW DOWN and give warrants. If your heart isn't really in it, chances are, mine won't be either. A very good way to increase your speaker points in front of me is to be CLEAR when transitioning from tag to cite to card, to EMPHASIZE the important parts of your evidence, and to explain why your cards are better and/or more qualified than the other teams. This may also be your tie-breaker or even round winner, in close debates.

-One "secret" about me: I LOVE big case, DA, and/or CP throw-down debates and I LOVE GOOD theory arguments on both sides. I am not necessarily a “K” judge. Emory and Dartmouth figured that out about me quickly and almost never lost a debate in front of me. Their K teams still liked me, and they won in front of me, too. DON'T BE AFRAID THAT I WANT TO HEAR ONLY Ks. I want to hear what YOU are good at, which tends to be what YOU enjoy. If you don’t know me and want to know more, the coaches who have influenced me most are people like: Justin Green, Scott Herndon, Eric Jenkins, and Sarah Glaser. I have debated and heard ALL positions that I know of. I am a very careful flow, and cross-ex doesn’t count as a speech (so you can’t read cards in it), but it IS binding. Have fun, good luck, and feel free to ask me questions!

-CPs: Of course you can run them. Whether they're theoretically legit it an issue for you all to parse out, not me. Same with other args.

-How to win a K in front of me: (1) Focus on the link and impact debate. The alternative is less important. A good K debater will win some risk of a link, articulate how their impact interacts with the case, and be able to win. You needn't worry about the SQ--If you're winning your link and impact assessment, you have proved the SQ is a better policy option. However, if you don't do the impact assessment or just read some random card about "epistemology," I will not be as impressed. Alternatives may seem sweet but may also be asking for trouble, as the aff may be able to perm or turn your alt, which gives you a time tradeoff and loses some ground on the real issue, which is: Should I vote for the aff or not, and if not, why not? I was a 2N, as well as a 2A for most of my college time, so I'm empathetic to both sides. New 2AR arguments don't get any leeway from me. New 2NR arguments should be pointed out my the aff (and tell me why I shouldn't listen to them), and I will probably listen. It's ALL debatable.

-I flow the Cross Ex, so if you see me writing things down during that time, it means I AM listening, and what you say then is binding, so don't make the mistake of saying something you didn't mean, unless you clarify later. Also, please tag cards if you didn't get the whole thing in and don't clip them, as I do flow the text of the cards to the best of my ability and am fairly meticulous.

-I am very easy-going and enjoy watching debates, so if you pref me, you will get someone who is genuinely interested in your arguments and excited about what you have to say. You'll also hear what I really enjoyed, on all sides, in my RFDs. Everyone brings something to the table for which they should be commended.


 * One last thing: The word "nuclear" is pronounced "noo-klee-ur," not "nu-kya-ler." Also, please try to pronounce country names properly. "I ran" is a sentence, not a country. "A-rack" is what you put roasted lamb on, not a country.


 * ) Enjoy and good luck!

Help · About · Blog · Pricing · Privacy · Terms · Support · Upgrade Contributions to http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/ are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.5 License. Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.5 License