Constraints: Appleton West

Background: Debated policy for four years in high school. Competed nationally. Did not debate in college. Graduated May 2009 from UW-Madison with a B.A in international studies and political science.

Judging background: This year, a few rounds of novice policy and PF. Past years, mostly varsity policy.

Paradigm: Tabula rasa for the most part. In general, I don't mind (and will vote on) any type of argument. However, in the case of theory and critical arguments, you will need to do more impact work in order to get my vote. With regards to theory, I rarely vote unless it is impacted well or there is clear abuse (which also needs to be impacted well). With regards to critical arguments, many K links are so general and the impact stories so linear that it is difficult for me to justify voting unless there is a clear, unique link.

I also want there to be impact calculus at the end of the round. I want to be told what arguments to evaluate first (and why!) and how they interact with other (apparently) less-important arguments. If I am not told what to evaluate first, I tend to evaluate T and theory first, followed by any alternatives (either critical or policy) and their net benefits. Then I evaluate case. Just because I evaluate things in this order does not mean you can disregard telling me what to evaluate first even if you are winning T. Low speaks for you if you do.

Other preferences: Speed is not a problem but it needs to be clear (especially with critical arguments because names of authors/philosophers tell me very little). Tag team cross-x is fine although speaker points will suffer if one partner is clearly dominating the other. Humor is nice. Don't be rude.