I am a Tabs judge and as such am willing to listen to any type of debate argument. That should describe my paradigm pretty well.
This includes: K, Topicality, Policy, Stock Issues, and Counterplans. I may be missing something in that list, but I will listen to it.

Some notes on what I would like in round:

-Please impact your arguments, I understand most impact scenarios - but feel free to summarize (it only helps you)
-Sign posting should stand out from the rest of your reading (watch to make sure I right them)
-Other than that speed is okay with me
-Being organized in your speeches is beneficial (doesn't have to be line by line, but jumping around means I am spending more time trying to follow you than weighing your arguments)
-Road-maps are not timed when they are short, please give them and please follow them, it goes along with being organized
-Open cross-x is okay when it is limited, the person who is supposed to be speaking should do 90% of the cross-x
-Clash THIS IS A BIG ONE: Counter the opponents arguments, analyze the evidence, why is yours better
-Weigh the round, perhaps show how you weigh the round using different paradigms
-Be polite

Other Information:
  1. Who should you not judge? I have not been a coach for 2 years now, but I did coach at Waukesha South.
  2. Were you a policy debater in high school? Yes, I debated in VSS for three years.
  3. Are you a coach of a team? I coach for 4-5 years at Waukesha South.
  4. Did you debate in college? No I did not.
  5. How long have you been involved with debate? I have been involved in debate for 11 years now, and have been judging for 7.
  6. What are your thoughts on the rate of communication? I don't mind speed, but it doesn't mean that you can ignore the other fundamentals of debate like being persuasive.
  7. What emphasis do you place on persuasive communication? I will put it this way, I would prefer a team go slower to be more persuasive if they cannot do both. Speed w/ pervasive is the best mix.
  8. Do you place any restrictions on cross-examination? Look above, if you don't follow that I will take it out in speaker points.
  9. What kind of debate do you like seeing: one with many different issues or one with a few in issues that are discussed in-depth? Either one works, but I prefer analysis - if that means you need to only have a few issues than that's okay.
  10. What are your thoughts on Topicality? No Preference.
  11. What does the negative need to do in order to win on Topicality? Prove the other team is not topical, and give me reasons to vote on it.
  12. Do you need to see in round abuse or is potential enough? Prefer actual abuse, but if you feel you can argue potential abuse go for it.
  13. What are your thoughts on Counterplans? No Preference.
  14. Do they need to be non-topical or just competitive? A counter plan is supposed to be non-topical.
  15. What are your thoughts on Kritiks/critiques? No Preference.
  16. How do you weigh different kinds of impacts? I don't put any weight on one or the other, as a debater you can try to influence me on this.
  17. What are your thoughts on theory? If you can argue it well go for it, just a note to the other team - refute it if you need to, offer a competing viewpoint.