I am new to debate. My background is in teaching and performance. I have taught cello, singing, and acting to children and adults, and I have conducted orchestras, choirs, chamber music, opera, operetta, and musicals. I am also a certified instructor in yoga and computer software. My experience with judging is in auditions to cast performances.

I admire anyone with the guts to get up in front of an audience. I have also taught and coached performance anxiety.They say that a public speaker experiences more stress than fighter pilot. Most people cannot do it, and fewer still can do it with any degree of competence and success. That is my starting point for judging criteria. Everyone here has already demonstrated a will and a confidence that few possess.

In my experience as a performer, director, conductor, and coach, I notice elements such as pacing, speed, rhythm, dynamics, gestures, facial expression, body movement, enjoyment, importance, pause for effect, feeling, eye contact, connection, sincerity, opposites, humor, intensity, expression, poise, creativity, confidence, and more. Additionally, I want to be convinced, persuaded, moved, transported, and surprised.

All of these qualities are aspirational, and few of them outweigh others in judging. Everyone has an opportunity to excel with their own strengths and qualities. Everyone has the opportunity to turn weaknesses into strengths. I try to "meet people where they are." If you are a nerd, then go all in and be proud of your nerdiness. All get points for effort. As they say in sports, don't leave anything on the field. Give it your all. Are you trying to apply your gifts to be your best self?

Speech and debate are life. Live your life to the fullest. Want what you have. Do what you can. Be who you are. Stay loose.

Kathryn Kernoff - Dartmouth College

I don't have strong argumentative preferences. More than anything else, I care about teams engaging specifically and explicitly with the other team's arguments.

I am not great at flowing and miss things that are unclear or too blippy. I say "clear" pretty frequently and I mean it. Even though no one does it anymore, I am a big fan of hard numbering.

Because of these two things, I am not a fan of embedded clash (except in the 1AR and some other limited circumstances). I think it's often an excuse for not answering things well enough or specifically enough and it usually causes me to miss things as I try to figure out where you are on the flow.

I care a lot about qualifications and am willing to disregard unqualified evidence if the other team points it out. If there is an unresolved question in the debate, qualifications are often important in how I resolve it.

I like debate, I like research, and I like hard work. I also have a bleeding heart and like believing it's possible to make the world a better place. I am not a good judge for arguments that contradict these predispositions.

These things matter to me more than any particular argument.

Some other thoughts from my old judge philosophy (still true):

1. I think there is room for both "policy" and "critical" considerations within the same debate. You are unlikely to convince me that I should categorically disregard either the kritik or DA and CP debates are fine. You should debate the way you want to debate. I am impressed by debaters who can intelligently deal with both. With either strategy, I prefer specificity and depth over generic claims I think there's a world of difference between the prolif K when the aff reads a prolif advantage and some generic kritik about psychoanalysis.
2. I strongly believe that topicality is a voting issue. I am generally unsympathetic of affs without plans and entirely unsympathetic of affs that don't attempt to talk about the topic. I think the neg has to prove that the aff is unreasonable, but I could be persuaded to vote on "our counter-interpretation is a tiny bit better." I think topicality evidence is very important (especially exclusive evidence) - the topic determines ground, not the other way around. I also tend to view topicality primarily in terms of limits. Although sometimes arguments about ground can be persuasive, I'm unlikely to think that ground loss alone makes the aff unreasonable.
3. It will be very difficult to persuade me that PICs or conditionality are bad, although I am a much easier sell on conditionality if there is more than one counterplan. With other theory issues, I believe in a more ad hoc approach. If neg can persuade me that the counterplan is discussed in the literature, it’s probably good for debate. Counterplans that do absurd things are probably bad for debate but generally just reasons to reject the counterplan. To get me to vote on any theory argument, you will need to persuade me to overcome the presumption of "reject the argument, not the team." I probably give the aff a little more leeway on perm arguments than most judges. I'm extremely unlikely to vote on severence or intrinsicness, especially if the aff says "do both" at some point in the debate.
4. Please be nice to both the other team and your partner. Debates are more enjoyable for everyone this way.
5. I think the strict offense/defense paradigm is silly. Obviously, it’s tough to win if the CP solves your case and you just have a couple of impact takeouts on the DA. But I think a team can win with defense alone. If there’s no internal link, there’s no internal link. A devastating takeout can be worth a thousand bad turns. Likewise, I don’t understand why the neg should have to win offense on theory or why the aff should have to win offense on topicality. I also attach less importance to uniqueness than many other judges. Things can always get worse. Uniqueness takeouts can reduce the probability of the DA but can’t “control the link.”
6. I will flow all speeches and read some evidence (although I'm not one of those people who can flow every single word - so if something's important, make it more than three words long). Warrants in speeches and in cards are important. Debaters are most persuasive when they explain an argument well and then reference a card to back it up (not necessarily by name). It’s also important for debaters to compare take evidence quality seriously. Qualifications are important and I prefer well-reasoned, well-researched evidence over evidence that is "literally on fire" with outlandish claims. I also give a lot of weight to analytical arguments that are warranted and make sense.

I'm an experienced judge who runs a traditional speech and debate program for a nonprofit organization, and teaches graduate students in college to use debate in their research and advocacy work in the field of health policy.

I appreciate debaters who stay on topic, signpost their contentions clearly, speak at a reasonable pace, use high-quality evidence, and crystallize.

Take on your opponent's arguments squarely. Don't attempt to sidestep or sneak around them with endless battling over definitions, burdens, and technicalities.