Powell,+Michael


 * School Constraints:** Appleton East


 * Experience:** In high school I did policy debate for two years, public forum for a year, student congress for two years, and extemporaneous speaking for two years. I have been a judge for the past four years and have watched numerous rounds of policy as well as a fair share of public forum and the occasional LD round.

-Speed: I have no problem with speed, but having said that it is important that you are clear while speaking, especially when it comes to your tags. -Cross Examination: I am fine with open cross-ex as well as taking evidence to look at during speech if both teams are okay with it. -Topicality: I am willing to listen to topicality, and it does come up as something I will vote on. In your 1NC you need to make sure you give me a FULL shell, this includes the interpretation, violation, standards and voters. If the aff is going to argue this I need you to give me a 'we meet' or a counter interpretation as well as counter standards and an explanation on why it is not a voter. For the negatives, it is of the utmost importance that if you go for topicality, you give me an abuse story. I DO NOT want to have you spend 15 seconds saying 'it’s abusive, vote them down'. If you are going for topicality, then you legitimately need to go for it, by that I mean it should be the centerpiece of your strategy. -Counterplans: I have no problem with counterplans, I would just say that you need to make sure you give me a plan text for it (I have seen rounds without them) as well as offering me some sort of DA or K to make it competitive, if I have a choice between a counterplan and a plan that claim the same advantages, I will likely default to the aff plan. As for the status of counterplans, if the aff wants to run 'condo is abusive' I want a solid abuse story just as with topicality. -DA's: I am willing to listen to any DA you throw out ultimately, but I prefer DA's that you can show are unique to the plan, and even more so if you can provide me with realistic impacts that are warranted. -Kritik's: I am fine with kritik's, but if you are going to go for them you need to provide a solid argument and sell me on why I should pick you up on it. You must also provide me with an alternative. Once again, if the aff wants to argue abuse on the K in some way, I need a solid abuse story to vote on. -Theory: I am willing to listen to theory, but you will need to sell me on it. I also appreciate if you are able to make sure you provide me with where you want your theory on the flow. -New Arguments: I definitely do not want to see any new arguments in rebuttals. -Splitting the block: No problems with splitting the block, in fact I would be a bit surprised if it didn't happen. -Preparation Time: I default to eight minutes unless the rules say different. -Oral Critiques: Generally speaking I provide an oral critique after the round.
 * Judging Paradigm:** Policymaker.