Kathryn Kernoff - Dartmouth College

I don't have strong argumentative preferences. More than anything else, I care about teams engaging specifically and explicitly with the other team's arguments.

I am not great at flowing and miss things that are unclear or too blippy. I say "clear" pretty frequently and I mean it. Even though no one does it anymore, I am a big fan of hard numbering.

Because of these two things, I am not a fan of embedded clash (except in the 1AR and some other limited circumstances). I think it's often an excuse for not answering things well enough or specifically enough and it usually causes me to miss things as I try to figure out where you are on the flow.

I care a lot about qualifications and am willing to disregard unqualified evidence if the other team points it out. If there is an unresolved question in the debate, qualifications are often important in how I resolve it.

I like debate, I like research, and I like hard work. I also have a bleeding heart and like believing it's possible to make the world a better place. I am not a good judge for arguments that contradict these predispositions.

These things matter to me more than any particular argument.

Some other thoughts from my old judge philosophy (still true):

1. I think there is room for both "policy" and "critical" considerations within the same debate. You are unlikely to convince me that I should categorically disregard either the kritik or DA and CP debates are fine. You should debate the way you want to debate. I am impressed by debaters who can intelligently deal with both. With either strategy, I prefer specificity and depth over generic claims I think there's a world of difference between the prolif K when the aff reads a prolif advantage and some generic kritik about psychoanalysis.
2. I strongly believe that topicality is a voting issue. I am generally unsympathetic of affs without plans and entirely unsympathetic of affs that don't attempt to talk about the topic. I think the neg has to prove that the aff is unreasonable, but I could be persuaded to vote on "our counter-interpretation is a tiny bit better." I think topicality evidence is very important (especially exclusive evidence) - the topic determines ground, not the other way around. I also tend to view topicality primarily in terms of limits. Although sometimes arguments about ground can be persuasive, I'm unlikely to think that ground loss alone makes the aff unreasonable.
3. It will be very difficult to persuade me that PICs or conditionality are bad, although I am a much easier sell on conditionality if there is more than one counterplan. With other theory issues, I believe in a more ad hoc approach. If neg can persuade me that the counterplan is discussed in the literature, it’s probably good for debate. Counterplans that do absurd things are probably bad for debate but generally just reasons to reject the counterplan. To get me to vote on any theory argument, you will need to persuade me to overcome the presumption of "reject the argument, not the team." I probably give the aff a little more leeway on perm arguments than most judges. I'm extremely unlikely to vote on severence or intrinsicness, especially if the aff says "do both" at some point in the debate.
4. Please be nice to both the other team and your partner. Debates are more enjoyable for everyone this way.
5. I think the strict offense/defense paradigm is silly. Obviously, it’s tough to win if the CP solves your case and you just have a couple of impact takeouts on the DA. But I think a team can win with defense alone. If there’s no internal link, there’s no internal link. A devastating takeout can be worth a thousand bad turns. Likewise, I don’t understand why the neg should have to win offense on theory or why the aff should have to win offense on topicality. I also attach less importance to uniqueness than many other judges. Things can always get worse. Uniqueness takeouts can reduce the probability of the DA but can’t “control the link.”
6. I will flow all speeches and read some evidence (although I'm not one of those people who can flow every single word - so if something's important, make it more than three words long). Warrants in speeches and in cards are important. Debaters are most persuasive when they explain an argument well and then reference a card to back it up (not necessarily by name). It’s also important for debaters to compare take evidence quality seriously. Qualifications are important and I prefer well-reasoned, well-researched evidence over evidence that is "literally on fire" with outlandish claims. I also give a lot of weight to analytical arguments that are warranted and make sense.

Important: I'm completely deaf in my left ear. This makes it hard to hear you, and it also makes it extra hard to distinguish background noises from voices. The clearer and louder team will often have a significant advantage debating in front of me. Speed: I don't mind speed, but I find it pretty rare that high schoolers are both clear and fast. Which would you prefer, saying 1000 things I can't understand, or saying 100 I can?

Overview: I am open to any compelling and well-articulated argument as to why the game should be played a certain way.

Novices: if you don't roadmap, I will flow straight down and then do my best / flip a coin at the end.

C-X: I don't flow it, but I will pay close attention for speaker-points purposes. Likewise, I think it can be binding if you articulate why it should be.

Style: In my youth I liked full K debates, in my old age I prefer policy. But it's not because I dislike Ks—I just enjoy a techy, hyper-specific policy round most of all. Keep in mind that my knowledge of K literature is well out-of-date with what is fashionable, and even if it weren't, I'm not going to do the work for you by filling arguments that I understand even though you are not explaining them correctly or at all.

I'm an experienced judge who runs a traditional speech and debate program for a nonprofit organization, and teaches graduate students in college to use debate in their research and advocacy work in the field of health policy.

I appreciate debaters who stay on topic, signpost their contentions clearly, speak at a reasonable pace, use high-quality evidence, and crystallize.

Take on your opponent's arguments squarely. Don't attempt to sidestep or sneak around them with endless battling over definitions, burdens, and technicalities.