Katie Klante -- Niles North

Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.

Judging philosophy:

I debated for four years at Brookfield Central High School and am a Freshman at Michigan State. I worked at the Spartan Debate Institute this summer and have judged a few tournaments on the topic, but am not overly familiar and don’t know all the in depth issues.

Topicality – I tend to buy reasonability arguments. There needs to be in round abuse or a net benefit to the negatives interpretation for me to vote negative and you need to win why competing interpretations is good. Since I don't know that much about affirmatives on the topic there needs to be a clear explanation somewhere in the debate.
Theory – These debates tend to get muddle making them difficult to evaluate. I’m willing to vote on theory, but there needs to be a clear abuse story and if the debate is all over the place I’m most likely going to call it a wash.
Kritiks - For the most part I’m ok with the K and understand the majority of what is happening. Some sort of explanation is always helpful as I’m not a philosophy major. I tend to evaluate these sorts of debates through framework and while this is a debate to be had I tend to lean towards the idea that the aff should be able to win their impacts. I think the negative needs to win at least some solvency for their alternative to win the debate.
Performance - I don’t really like performance, probably won’t vote for it, I think that policy making is good for debate.
Disads – I evaluate impact claims. There needs to be impact analysis and it should start early in the debate, preferably with reasons why it turns the case.
Counterplans – I like almost all counterplans. I agree with Debbie Lai that they should solve the majority of the affirmative.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: