Affiliations: I have not debated or coached for any schools in Wisconsin, so there should be no conflicting interests.

Background: I debated in Kansas at Shawnee Mission East all four years of high school, the last two in Varsity, reaching state my senior year. I also attended several summer camps and policy sessions at the University of Kansas. While I was in high school I also participated in forensics, reaching state in Poetry my junior and senior years. I have judged at numerous tournaments and at all levels of policy debate since 2003.

I am comfortable with quick communication rates, although I do prefer sound arguments and justified reasons for a team's position. I enjoy hearing in-depth arguments about the important topics of the round, however I do see value in discussing several topics and allowing for a broad and complex view. Above all else, however, I do expect the affirmative not to drop any stock issues unless strong justification is given. I think that Topicality is a viable topic during a debate, and will consider any topicality arguments, but unless the negative can show a gross violation it will take more than just topicality to win. Counterplans and Kritiks are fine with me, although in both cases I will put a slightly higher burden on the negative team as opposed to advantages/disadvantages or stock issues where the affirmative has a higher burden. I do not care if Counterplans are non-topical, or what types of objections the Kritiks make, as long as their merits are argued well. I prefer counterplans and kritiks that are either dispo or unconditional as opposed to conditional if the negative team is attempting to merely spread the affirmative. However, if the negative has strong justification for making conditional counterplans or kritiks, then I am willing to accept them as valid arguments. If a team makes the round unfair in some way I will entertain theory arguments, however I've found them difficult to execute and think it is unlikely that a team can win a round on theory alone.