School: I attended Stevens Point Area Senior High (SPASH, WI). Hired by Appleton East as clean judge except for SPASH.

Experience: Three years of high school (mostly VSS debate). I continue to regularly judge mostly in-state Wisconsin debate, but some out of state.

Tabs judge -- I vote based on the flow, but I err towards policy. I do accept kritiks, however.

Here are my views on some arguments in particular:

On Case: Don't forget about this. On case arguments should not be forgotten, especially by the affirming team.

Topicality: Explain your standards and voters in a clear, detailed manner. In round abuse is far more convincing than potential abuse, but convincing potential abuse can sway me. I favored topicality when I debated in high school, so I look for thorough arguments, and not generic "extend our standards" arguments.

Counterplans: Obviously, there must be a unique, convincing net benefit.

Kritiks: I look for framework arguments when kritiks are presented, so you must show me that you aren't using a policy framework. Impact framing is still important.

Framework: Framework is a very useful argument to use, especially when attempting to convince me to err towards your argument.

Impact calc: If you don't impact your arguments, I won't know why to vote for you, so don't forget to frame your impacts and tell me why you should win/what the important arguments are in the round.

If you have any additional/specific questions, feel free to email me at hlocher@wisc.edu. Please make the subject "Judge Paradigm" so I don't accidentally overlook your email.