How I vote In a round: I vote on whether or not the plan is worth passing. It may not be perfect but if it can solve for the issues presented, it would be worth passing. But if the plan is shown to have too many dire flaws, then of course i will not pass it.

1. Waukesha South high school

2. 4 Years of policy debate as a competitor for Greendale High School and 3 years of judging policy debate (2 years Greendale high school, 1 year Waukesha South). Frequent Judge. Experience also expands to 4 years of competing in Forensics as well as 2 years of Judging for Greendale High School.

3. This is my 7th year of debate, 3rd year of judging.

4. In terms of Speed, it is fine if it is understandable. I can flow speed, but if there is no enunciation and it is just gibberish I will not flow and the speaker will be scored low. Cross ex should be one on one with ZERO questions asked by the partner who is not supposed to be involved in cross ex.

5. I like well thought out arguments. I love the use of Logic with evidence to form potential problems. It makes for an educational round unless of course the arguments being presented are flawed in logic and bring nothing to a round. For example-Zombie D.A. The more arguments the better, as long as they have some depth to them and could stand on their own. A brief card on an argument would not be enough. The best arguments are the ones that are well thought out and are something that could potentially happen. I dislike Nuclear war arguments because it Logically doesn't add up, for example from a debate round judged this year:

1) If a rock hits a satellite then another country will become aggravated.
2) Therefore, The aggravated country will start a nuclear war.

I've heard this kind of logic used. It has too many gaps and it makes no sense that premise 2 draws from 1. A nuclear war could be a potential problem, but it MUST be argued well and the ones using this MUST be able to show that this would be a tangible problem and MUST fill in those gaps so that the conclusion logically can draw from the premises presented.

6. Topicality is always an interesting argument. Always willing to listen to the complaints. But if the issue gets to wrapped up on different definitions from both sides, i will normally leave Topicality alone in order to preserve the round.

7-8: Nothing I look for in particular. I simply say that if they are argued well enough and have legitimacy behind them, i will listen. How they round will rely on those issues will depend on how well they are argued from both ends.