Constraints: Neenah

Experience: I was a Lincoln-Douglas debater as a high school student and I attended exactly one tournament in Policy debate in order to fill out a four person team. Since then, this is my fourth year as a judge and my third year as a coach at Neenah High School. Through this job I have gained extensive experience coaching and judging in Policy debate and Lincoln-Douglas.

Policy

Paradigm: Tabula Rasa with a few exceptions. There are no arguments that I will outright not weigh in the round but Kritiks that are crazy or run poorly irritate me. If you are going to run a Kritik, be sure you understand it and go for it whole heartedly. I find conditionality on Kritiks highly problematic.

Counterplans: I have no limitations in terms of counter-plans.

Theory: I am generally okay with theory arguments as long as they are clearly explained and impacted.

Speed: Generally, I have no problem with speed. However, you need to be clear. I am willing to say clear if I cannot understand you but please do not make me do so repeatedly.

Topicality: I will vote on topicality if the violation is legitimate or if the affirmative team mishandles a topicality attack. I am more likely to vote on the issue if in round abuse can be proved but this is not mandatory at all.

What I consider a good round: I like to see a lot of clear clash and solid crystallization in the rebuttals. I want each team to explain clearly to me what I should vote for and why I should do so. Impact calculus is also very important; explain to me why it would be significantly detrimental of the world if I choose to vote against your team. I like the presumption of Fiat. I am also a Congress judge and I enjoy the idea of pretending that what we are arguing about actually happens. As a result, I prefer real world impacts to in round impacts.

Lincoln-Douglas

Standards: I prefer a round with a good deal of discussion of the larger picture in terms of the value and value criterion debate. I enjoy LD debate as forum for philosophical discussion. I believe that a good round should be driven by this idea of a world view on each side and a larger picture. That being said, as stated in my Policy philosophy, I am a Tabula Rasa judge. This means that while what I described is the round I enjoy most, I am perfectly comfortable with wherever the debaters choose to take it.

Negative Burden: While I believe it is possible for the negative to win by simply proving the resolution wrong, this is not ideal. It will also be much harder to win my ballot in this way. I believe that each side should advocate a clear position rather than the negative simply advocating negation.

Speed: I often judge policy debate, I have never had a problem with an LD debater going too fast for me. That being said, if I cannot understand you I will say clear.

What I consider a good round: I like to see a lot of clear clash and solid crystallization in the rebuttals. I want each team to explain clearly to me what I should vote for and why I should do so. Spell out for me specifically why you won the round, even if you believe you have lost. Make it clear to me the detrimental impacts of voting for your opponent.