Kessner,+Jane


 * Background**: I debated for Walt Whitman High School for 4 years on the local and national circuits and now attend Amherst College.


 * General**: The most important element of a debate that I'll look for is a clear explanation of what the framework is for the round (whether that be a criterion, burdens, etc.) and explicit links to that framework. Don't assume a framework without proving it, or link to some nebulous concept that has not been justified as a weighing mechanism in the round. I don't feel that identifying with a particular widely-accepted paradigm (i.e. "comparative words" or "truth-testing") is necessary for evaluating the vast majority of rounds. So, I won't ascribe to either of these when judging rounds. If your arguments depend on the assumptions of one of these paradigms, and your opponent's operate under an alternate paradigm, engage in that debate in-round. I am open to all arguments and forms of arguments (with the exception of those that are extremely racist/sexist/etc.).


 * Speed**: Speed is fine. Make sure that you are clear, audible, and try not to speak in a monotone. If you go fast, make sure your speeches are very well organized (numbering of arguments, etc.). If you read a lot of 1-sentence spikes without any labeling, I probably won't flow many of them.


 * Theory:** I'm fine with theory, though I prefer it to be run when actual abuse occurs rather than running 3-5 theory shells that are probably unnecessary. This doesn't mean that I won't vote for theory that I personally view as unnecessary - I'll vote for it if you win it - but it might hurt your speaks a little bit. Make sure to justify all components of the theory shell, including strong links to the voters, and substantive reasons why fairness/education are voters/pre-requisites to the topical debate. I am open to answers at any level of the theory debate, including reasons why the voter is not actually a voter or why theory should not precede the topical debate.


 * Presumption**: In the incredibly unlikely instance of an absolute tie, rather than defaulting aff or neg, I will default to whichever debater is better in cross-x. First, this provides a way to determine who was the better debater apart from what happened on the flow (where the debaters tied). Second, I think that CX is by far the most under-valued aspect of debate, and hopefully this will make debaters actually try to be good at CX when debating in front of me, instead of asking two useless clarification questions and wasting one of the most important parts of the round.


 * Other**: Humor is appreciated, but please don't be rude. Have fun, and feel free to ask me any questions before the round!