Constrained Against: Cedarburg

Debate Experience: I debated for Cedarburg for four years. This is my second year coaching Cedarburg's policy team.

CX: Open

Prep: 8 min.

Speed: As someone who's in their sixth year of participation in policy debate, I can handle speed. I would, however, prefer slower debates which focus more on quality argumentation than speed. Good debaters don't need to go fast to win.

Depth vs. Breadth: I prefer debates where both sides have a few, well-developled arguments and stable advocacies throughout the round.

Topicality: I'm open to T if you can prove in-round abuse. I won't vote on potential abuse. I also don't begin with the assumption that T is always a voter. You need to convince me that T is important in the round.

Counter Plans: I'd be more than happy to vote for a CP if it is seriously pursued as a negative's primary advocacy. As for CP theory, it needs to be clearly articulated (ie not a string of debate buzzwords) and impacted with a compelling abuse story. I prefer unconditional or dispositional CPs rather than conditional CPs.

Kritiks: I'd be more than happy to vote for the K if it is seriously pursued (ie one or two off). I have a soft spot for rhetoric Ks. I want you to clearly explain the role of the ballot and to articulate complex philosophical ideas in a way that is consistent with the intent of the author of that evidence. I will not vote on a K which mischaracterizes the author's intent. Know what you're talking about.

Theory: I feel the same way about theory as I do about T. If you can't prove abuse and aren't going to seriously pursue it, don't bother.