Affiliated with Mukwonago High School.
Alumni of Milwaukee School of Engineering.
Second year judging.

I have adopted the paradigm professed by my fellow judges. I am the President of the United States. No particular President, just a hypothetical one I will affirm to policies that are in best interest of the United States and reject do not. I expect everything to be argued under this framework.

Here are some points pertinent in gaining my approval:

Speed:
Please, don't. Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in front of the president. I'll bend that much. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style. Go with this guide - if you think you might be too fast, you are. Depth, not amount, is going to sway my decision. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I didn't bother writing them down. You respect the office or you don't get an audience with the President.

Topicality:
You may think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisers to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, and you're just showing off your silly squirrel definition, I'm likely to put the Secret Service on you. So, make sure you have a good case in reality, not in Debateland.

DAs and Advantages:
Clearly, the President has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed as a nutcase and then given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing you to be a nutcase and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, I will not allow DAs that destroy affirmative fiat. So, no “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important to the President. I do like getting re-elected.

CPs:
Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisers, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own Aff plan.

Kritiks:
Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or Neg counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizzare solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

Performance:
I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, the secret service will be asked to not-so-gently escort you from the room. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Behavior:
Be polite! Outright rudeness and disrespect will cost you speaker points.
I tend to be a little overly serious but don't be afraid to enjoy yourselves and add a little humor.
Debate is first and foremost a educational experience so make the most out of each and every round

Finally, the President is a busy man. You do your arguing. Do not expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider.