Kern,+Harrison

I debated for Randolph High School (NJ) for 4 years. I attend the University of Pennsylvania and compete as a part of the Penn Debate Society.

[UPDATE] I haven't judged in about a year, so speak at about 75-80% of your normal speed if you are spreading. Also, don't bring me snacks and drinks anymore, that policy is probably bad.

**Short Version:**
I will vote for basically any argument that has some semblance of a warrant and isn't blatantly offensive. __Slow down on tags, interps, advocacy texts, and author names.- I will yell clear and slow a lot, so if you feel like I missed an important line, feel free to repeat yourself.__ I probably feel more comfortable judging certain rounds based on my experience competing in LD, but I don't necessarily have any preferences on what type of debate I want to see. Usually, the best strategy is to debate what you are best at, whether that be tricks, LARP, the K, etc. Also, weighing goes far in front of me, not just in terms of the decision, but also in awarding speaks.

Theory/T/Tricks:

 * Defaults: DTA on Theory, DTD on T, no RVI's, Competing Interps (these are all loose defaults that can be altered with any argumentation to the contrary)
 * __Slow down on interps, counter-interps, and tags.__
 * If you are going to be reading a lot of tricks in the AC or NC, I'd suggest that you briefly pause or create some sort of break in the speech in between the spikes. No need to number or letter them (that would be helpful though), but I would appreciate some sort of way to differentiate the spikes when flowing.
 * If you are extending paragraph theory in the 1a/1n, please extend the full interp (slowly, of course).
 * I read tricks a lot when I debated and tbh, many of them are pretty absurd. That being said, I think that they are much more effective when just a few are used strategically in later speeches (as opposed to just extending a big 15-point underview).
 * Don't be overly sketchy in CX when you are questioned on the implications of your tricks
 * Theory debates have the potential to get messy very quickly, so weighing between standards, voters, T vs. Theory, etc. will be very helpful to me in evaluating the theory debate.
 * I do not assume meta-theory comes before theory
 * __Slow down on interps, counter-interps, and tags.__

Kritiks:

 * I read them fairly often my senior year, so I have a pretty good understanding of K's and some lit, but do not assume that I am well read in what you are reading. Err on the side of over-explanation when going through the links, impacts, and the ROJ/B. __Slow down on author names, alt texts, etc.__
 * Please articulate some sort of weighing mechanism or framework for the K- I'd rather not have to evaluate floating claims about which form of oppression is worse. Being able to weigh under some sort of framework will make the debate a lot easier to evaluate.
 * Non-Topical Positions, Micropolitical positions, and Narratives: I am probably not the best judge to evaluate rounds where the aff has absolutely no link to the topic and relies solely on a narrative or micropol position. I will evaluate these arguments, I just don't have much experience with them (A non-topical aff is okay if there are links to the topic and why it is bad. Ex: The ableism aff read on the handgun topic from Jan/Feb).
 * If you have both performative and methodological aspects of your case, please articulate which one comes first (preferably in earlier speeches).

LARP:

 * __Slow down on author names, advocacy texts (If I yell clear on this, it would be in your best interest to repeat the plan text), and tags.__
 * Weighing is a must- good evidence comparison and weighing in a really technical util debate will make me very happy.
 * Perms are a test of competition by default.
 * Giving overviews at the top of the 2n/2a are especially helpful in crystallizing the round.
 * __Slow down on author names, advocacy texts, and tags.__

Dense Philosophical Positions:

 * They're fine, but I definitely have the least experience with these types of positions, so make sure that you are clearly explaining the weighing mechanism and the framework very clearly.
 * __Slow down on tags, author names, and short analytics.__

Speaks:

 * __Slow down on tags, interps, advocacy texts, and author names.__
 * I don't care if you sit, stand, dance, sing or rap (I'd love to see the last two) while you speak as long as you are clear and loud enough to be heard.
 * I'll yell speed or clear as much as necessary, but if I see that you aren't adapting, I will probably get visibly annoyed.
 * I don't have a set scale for assigning speaks, but they will be determined based on clarity, technical proficiency, strategy, and competitiveness of the tournament.
 * **Things that will get you good speaks:**
 * Giving Overviews
 * Doing a lot of weighing
 * Being funny or making the round entertaining (please do not be mean or exclusionary- I will nuke your speaks for that)
 * Making smart or clever strategic decisions
 * Being persuasive and dominant in CX
 * **Things that will get you bad speaks:**
 * __Not slowing down on tags, interps, advocacy texts, and author names.__

Misc.:

 * I'm pretty expressive when listening to a round, so I'd suggest looking up from your computer to see if we're on the same page with the debate.
 * I know that it takes a while to flash over evidence sometimes, but please do not use that time to compile extra prep or change your strategy. I won't dock points for you taking a while to flash over your evidence, but I may boost speaks slightly if I see that you have a pre-composed speech doc that you can flash right away.
 * I will adopt whatever paradigm both debaters seem to assume for the round (i.e. comparative worlds, truth-testing, offense-defense, etc) unless it's contested.

If you have any questions, feel free to hit up Nathan Cha's paradigm, as I evaluate rounds similar to him, except for the fact that I don't stop flowing after the 1AR even if I think that the round is "over". Then go hit him up on Soundcloud @chacolate. Or you can just email me at kernh@sas.upenn.edu. Have fun and good luck!!