Yanofsky,+Kevin

Updated: 11/24/2015

I debated circuit LD for three years for Torrey Pines High School (class of 2011) and graduated from UC Berkeley (class of 2015) with a degree in computer science where I was a director of the NPDA Parli team (debate style is very similar to high school policy without cards).

Debate is a game, and I think you should play it in such a way that gives you the best chance to win. I am willing to vote on just about any argument as long as it is won. With regard to speed, I have never had to tell a debater to slow down due to my lack of understanding what they are saying, but do know that my flowing hand is not as fast as my brain. So if you are very fast, consider slowing down a little for key arguments to ensure they make it onto my flow.
 * Overview:**

As a debater my greatest frustration with debate has been judges who do not give their full attention and effort towards making the best decision possible. I know debate is important to you and I will do my best to respect that. Every round I judge, after I decide the side I think I will be voting for, I will always pause and try to find the most compelling way to justify a ballot for the other debater. From here I will compare the points at which these two options deviate and how much intervention each would require in order to come to a final decision.

Although it does not necessarily influence my preference of the arguments as a judge, it might be helpful for you to know what type of debater I was/am. In high school I mostly ran various deontological frameworks combined with a heavy dose of theory. In college I've broadened my style a lot, running everything from straight up plans/CPs to kritiks.

1. I am more nitpicky than most judges about good signposting and organization. Clean numbering of your arguments and labeling which specific point you are responding to will help me keep a neat flow. 2. Things that should be read slowly and twice: plan/CP texts, K alts, role of the ballot arguments, and T/theory interpretations. 3. In order for me to vote on an argument my minimum threshold is that I should be given an understanding of the argument such that I can explain back its warrant and function in my RFD.
 * Small Important Details:**

1. I default to a competing interpretations view of evaluating theory. If you wish to argue for reasonability, I highly recommend you define an interpretation of what reasonability means. Absent this, I will assume reasonability means I should give leniency to “terminal defense” on a theory position. 2. I default to fairness being a reason to reject the debater over reject the argument. 3. I am down for various strategic uses of theory, but this does not mean that your throwaway T should be poorly formed or warranted. 4. I default to holding debaters accountable to the exact wording of the text rather than the spirit of the shell when it comes to I meets or other responses. Think carefully about how to word your interpretation and counter interps, and use these nuances to your advantage in the theory debate. 5. I evaluate the RVI like any other argument. One of my gripes with RVIs is that while debaters often read a number of warrants for or against an RVI, there is a lack of explicitly impacting the RVI. By default I will vote on an RVI only if you have completely defeated all of your opponent’s theory positions. Additionally, I feel that the debate would benefit if the RVI is read with an explicit interpretation.
 * Theory:**

I have read many of these arguments in my debate career, so I will understand the function behind many Ks. That being said, I am not deep into the actual literature behind these positions, so don't expect me to fill in the gaps if you leave them.
 * Kritiks:**

1. I generally average 28 on speaker points. 2. High 28s or above means I think you should break. 3. I give about one 30 per year.
 * Speaker Points:**

1. I don’t care if you sit or stand, if you have formal attire, etc. 2. If there is anything you feel I have left out here it’s likely because I consider it to be fairly “default” so I’d be happy to answer any questions before your round. 3. Unless you explicitly ask me not to, I will give my reasons for decision in the room after the debate. I take slightly longer to finalize my decision than the average judge. I will be happy to answer questions after my decision as long as they are asked in a courteous manner. 4. Debate is fun, that’s why I still participate in it. Try to keep the round fun for everyone participating.
 * Misc:**