I debated locally and nationally for Brookfield Central High School for four years. I also debated for a year at Northwestern University.

On this topic, I have judged at several tournaments, including the Marquette tournament in Milwaukee, the University of Michigan high school tournament, the New Trier high school tournament, and the Northwestern High School Round Robin. I have some exposure on this topic, but in many debates I have found that debaters assume way too many things are common knowledge. If you expect me to know what means-testing is, that's probably okay. If you expect me to know the acronyms for various pieces of legislation and what was included in those bills that are described in some piece of topicality evidence, that's probably not good for you.

I think I will generally vote on anything, I would always rather see someone do something well than try to adapt to what they think I like. This year I know I've voted both aff and neg on Capitalism, word PICs, T-social services, T-persons living in poverty, the States counterplan, and whether systemic impacts like poverty/starvation/dehumanization outweigh disad impacts.

I think dropped arguments are more or less considered true arguments for the purposes of the debate. I think a warranted argument that makes sense is probably at least as good as someone saying "but we have a card" that they just expect me to read after the round. I'm not sure I've ever voted on someone winning with only defensive arguments.

I'm not really sure what else people want to know, so if you have questions, just ask me. Thanks!!