Leora+Korn

I debated 4 years on the national and local circuit for Walt Whitman High School (MD) and graduated in 2016. I qualified to the TOC my senior year, and got one bid my junior year. I go to the University of Pennsylvania.


 * Short: **I will vote for any argument that is won on the flow, so long as it has a warrant and has been clearly extended throughout the round. I want to vote on things that people actually say. Argument explanation is everything- this means that excessive speed, lack of clarity, and blippiness can interfere with my goal. Otherwise, do whatever you want and have fun J


 * Long- **


 * Speed: **Go as fast as you want. I reserve the right to yell clear, slow, and loud as many times as I want.
 * Framework: ** As a debater, I mostly read philosophical positions (analytic phil). With that being said, I would really enjoy a nice philosophical clash. However, just because I was a phil debater does not mean that you should feel obligated to run phil heavy strats. Regardless of whether or not you run an analytic philosophy, I need some sort of framework to evaluate the round under (paradigm issues on their, rotb on Ks, etc.). I ran a lot of arguments about how my analytic frameworks were my methodology (way of achieving a role of the ballot) my junior and senior year, so I am very open to arguments about framework vs the K.
 * LARP: **The extent of my LARPing consisted mostly of non-topical plans, T, and dispo counterplans, so this is probably one of my weak suits for round evaluation. With that being said, feel free to run any LARP arguments, just make sure that you WEIGH! Also, because I did not do much policy style debate, try to avoid random jargon that I may not have heard.
 * Theory: **I read a lot of theory as a debater so feel free to read as much theory as you want. I do not have any defaults on theory paradigm issues, which means that it is the debaters job to justify all portions of the theory shell for me to vote on it. I will not intervene against theory arguments that I do not like or frivolous theory; however, if the abuse story isn’t great, I will be very reluctant to vote on it.
 * T: **I read a lot of T my senior year, and I think that it is one of the coolest kinds of arguments that can be run in LD. I read T on both sides, and I would love to see some innovative T arguments in the 1AR if resolutions allow that. ALSO, I think that T (with fairness first arguments) is an extremely persuasive way to engage K’s/ROTB’s so feel free to do that in front of me, I did it a lot.
 * K’s/ROTB’s: **I barely every read K’s as a debater, but that does not mean that I will not enjoy listening to them and voting for them. However, it does mean that I am not well versed on most K literature, so please slow down and explain things. I presume a truth- testing role of the ballot unless the debaters tell me otherwise. This also means that I really need some evaluative mechanism under the K (ROTB, ROTJ, normative framework, etc.) so that I can evaluate the round under some framework.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Speaks: **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">I will decide speaks mostly based off of in-round strategy and how easy you make my decision. I want you to paint a picture of my ballot for me, and if it is straight forward, you will get good speaks. If it takes me a long time to decide the round because the round is very muddled, you might not get the best speaks.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">*One last note*: I will give extremely low speaks/ reserve the right to vote against any arguments or behaviors that are offensive and bullying in round. Please provide trigger warnings. Please be sensitive to other people’s experiences. Please do not make inappropriate jokes. Please do not be excessively rude in CX. Be nice.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!