I've had 14 years of debate experience (debated 4 years high school, judged 4 years and now am coaching at Waukesha South in year 6).

I am a policy judge who will generally vote on the question do I believe this plan will work, if so why should I put it in place or why should I not put it in place. I am okay with counterplans and anything else you can throw out there as long as you can show real world implications. DA's need to have real links that are not just generic but have actual implications due to the affirmative plan.

I do not generally like topicality unless a case is untopical and then the negative still needs to show how this is poorly affecting the debate.

I like debaters who can analyze evidence and explain why the evidence makes sense and how this affects the round and how maybe their evidence is better than the other teams.

I can handle pretty much any speed, I haven't dealt with one yet that I can't really flow.

I do not allow tag team cross ex unless it is specifically granted in the tournament rules.