Affiliation: La Crosse
Debate experience: I debated 4 years policy for La Crosse. This is my third year as a judge, as well as assistant coach, for La Crosse.


Paradigm: I identify fundamentally as a tabs judge. I will listen to any argument, and if it's argued well, I'll vote on it. That being said, I prefer a round with real clash and lively debate to one of squirrelly arguments and speed for the sake of speed. Analysis of evidence and weighing the round are of the utmost importance, and I expect both to feature heavily in rebuttals.

Specific arguments/issues:

DAs and CPs: Both are fine. Obviously, I prefer specific links to generics. I'll admit to a slight bias against politics DAs, though it hasn't stopped me from voting on them in the past. I think that, in most cases, they kill opportunities for genuine education in the round, and I'd just much prefer a round without them.

Topicality: I'll definitely vote on T, and I will consider voters other than in-round abuse if argued well.

Kritiks: I welcome kritikal args, but if you're going to run them, you'd better understand them. Give me framework. Kritks should have a clear alt, and I expect the neg to demonstrate how the alt should be weighed against policy options.

Theory: Also fine, but see notes on Kritiks. If you don't get it, don't run it.

Speed: I'm okay with speed, and I can flow it. I certainly won't penalize solely for speed, but I won't reward it, and poor speed-reading will result in docked speaks.

Cross-x: I allow open cross-x, though I will penalize for cross-x that isn't primarily between the two people who are supposed to be speaking.

Tag-teaming: No. Once you're speaking, you're on your own.

Pet peeves: Lack of organization and rudeness. There's no excuse for not roadmapping and signposting, and I will dock speaks for it. Similarly, there's no excuse for overt meanness and condescension, and I expect a civil round.

In conclusion, debate well, play fair, have fun, and good luck.