Background: Debated 2002-2006 at Brookfield Central High School; Policy and PF Coach at Nicolet High School from 2010- current. This is my fourth year judging.

Summary: I describe myself as a tabs judge with a policy focus. I prefer policy based arguments (case, DA’s , CP’s) but I am willing to vote on whatever you bring up. Give me a clear analysis of how I should vote and I will. I really appreciate good impact calculus and comparison in the 2NR and 2AR.

Also I see debate as an educational activity so ideally your arguments would add to the educational environment of a debate.

Speed: No problems. I will say "clear" if necessary
Open C-X: Yes

T: I find reasonability to be fairly persuasive for the Aff but I can be persuaded to vote on T given a clear violation story. If you want me to vote on T, I need at some point in the debate that you explain the in-round abuse or why I should vote on potential abuse.

K: I am not well read on K evidence, so if you do run a K I would ask that you spend time truly explaining the technical aspects of your K. I prefer a more specific Alt and actual articulation of the link story.

Theory: I, generally, agree with “reject the argument not the team”, but if given good analysis I would consider dropping the team. I have tended to vote that Conditionality is abusive for the Aff. I understand the value of the theory debate as promoting fairness in the activity but I need a clear abuse story.