Bio:
Debated in high school 1.5 years at SPASH (WI)
Currently a first year debater at the University of Minnesota

Hastily thrown together philosophy 10-10-14:

-I lean towards policy style debate, but I do my best to evaluate any and all arguments. Play to your strengths, not to me.

-CP’s: I lean aff for a good portion of theory questions, e.g. consult/condition/process, but can be persuaded otherwise. Creative, strategic counterplans that solve the aff are awesome.

-Disads: Awesome. Good impact and internal link comparison to the aff is a must.

-Kritiks: I’m not super caught up in the literature, but I know the general thesis of most K’s – the clearer you explain them, the more likely I’ll vote for you.

-Theory: Conditionality is probably good, I can be persuaded otherwise. One thing to note: I have a relatively low threshold for new responses to conceded blippy theory - if you happen to accidently drop a 2 second line of theory, feel free to justify new responses as I’m persuaded that making it a d-rule isn’t too educational.

-Topicality: I lean towards reasonability, but I can be persuaded otherwise without much difficulty. Impact level analysis is important.

Wisconsin State Tournament Update: 1-15-15
Speed is good. Yes tag team cross-x. I don't take prep for flashing. 8 minutes prep is standard. An ideal debate round I would like to judge is where there is impact calc in the final rebuttals, substantive responses to the important arguments in the round, and when the debate as a whole is fast, creative, and fun.