Harris,+Katheryn

I debated for Lexington High School in Massachusetts from 1998 to 2002 and have been judging on and off since then. This is my first season assistant coaching Harrison High School, so I'll be at the majority of Northeast tournaments.

I'm what most people would call a traditional judge. I believe LD is a communicative activity and that rounds should be about the topic, so I view policy-style spreading and theory arguments as being antithetical to the very reason LD exists. I have no problem with policy debate and respect it for what it is, but I think policy arguments, speaking style, and strategy have no place in LD. I'm not going to drop anyone on face for spreading or running a kritik or a counterplan or something, but I will take it out on speaker points, and I'll always look for any possible reason to vote for someone running substantive arguments. As a rule, run arguments that address the topic and speak clearly and not much faster than conversation speed, and I'll be happy. And stand up during your speeches/cx. I can't believe I actually have to tell people this, but I find this lack of professionalism horrifying. I know this makes me really old-school, but seriously? I'm giving up my weekend for you. Stand up.

I'm a firm believer in all arguments in the round linking to the value and criterion. If you don't impact your arguments to the standard, I'm not going to look at them, because that says to me that they don't have a place in the round. Consequently, voting issues are extremely important to me. If you don't explain to me why an issue in the round is a voter, link it to the standard, and weight it against your opponent's arguments/voting issues, I'm just not going to look at it. I know over the past decade or so, debaters have stopped developing their voting issues and are either crystallizing down the floor or not crystallizing at all; please don't do that in front of me. I love seeing the last two minutes or so of the NR and the entire 2AR be devoted to voting issues (which are actual issues, not single arguments or cards). This is your chance to take a step back from the flow and give me the big-picture view of the round, which makes things MUCH clearer for me. The more concrete you are and the more world-building and weighing you do at the end of the NR and in the 2AR, the better. In a close round, I will always go with the debater who gives me a cohesive narrative and who uses the criterion to weigh the round.