Korn,+Nathaniel

I debated for 4 years nationally and locally for Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda Maryland where I was LD Captain my Senior year. I am a Sophomore at Northwestern.

**Glenbrooks will be the first circuit tournament I've ever judged so look at everything below under that context.**

General stuff: **I like good, strategic, debate.** Whether that be meta-ethics, policy-style, critical, theory, tricky etc. I understand the tabula rosa paradigm as implying that the only things I can evaluate are the arguments on my flow at the end of the round. That means I'm not going to count arrows, and I reserve the right to gut check. I have been out of the circuit since I graduated from high school so don't expect me to know all jargon or handle your top speed. In reality, **responding to arguments and engaging other positions** is what I see as the most important part of debate so I'd rather see a debate like this than watch people avoid there opponents position.

Defaults: As soon as an argument comes up these go away, but until someone says otherwise, truth-testing (even though paradigm theory doesn't really make many tangible exclusions of arguments since frameworks contextualize what impacts matter), theory is a reason to drop the arg, rvi good.

Speed: I debated fast when I debated but haven't really judged fast debate so start slower and speed up, **I really have no idea what speeds I can handle**. I'll say clear and slow if I can't understand you and won't penalize for that unless it is excessive.

Framework: I like good Framework debate and have a decent understanding of the debate cannon. Also just because you have a meta-ethic doesn't mean framework responses function on a different level. In addition, although I like framework, rounds that devolve completely into are not the best.

Theory: defaults above apply, also be clear to signpost very carefully on theory debates. Although I have no problem voting for theory, I also will dock speaks if I think it is run abusively (against someone who doesn't know what to do) or just an absurd argument. Rvi's are fine if you win justifications, you need some type of threshold if you want to convince me to look to reasonability.

Policy-stuff: Don't be afraid to run this in front of me because I didn't do this much in high school, I really like this type of debate! Just make sure to avoid highly advanced policy jargon.

K's: Good K's are cool, awful K's are painful, but I have no problem voting for a k, just make sure it's contextualized under some framework or role of the ballot.

Pre-fiat/Micro-political: If you win the justifications than I'll vote for it, but **I have a pretty high threshold for reasons to not debate the resolution.**

tricks: I'm fine with tricks, **IF I am able to follow them in the first speech** and new implications aren't created in later speeches.

Presumption: Presumption provides a way to pick a winner in the case of a deadlock, so that means if I (not you) think it is a deadlock than I will look to presumption, you "triggering" presumption doesn't change that. Yet, at the same time people need to provide a reason why there is a risk of offense, not just posit the claim (i.e. just explain why certain defensive arguments aren't terminal).

I'll average 28 speaks. Be respectful, this is a great activity and everyone puts there heart into it deserves to have a good time. **I also like Game of Thrones references**. Email me at nathanielkorn95@gmail.com for questions, and remember to have fun.