Martner,+Casey

I am a Tabs judge and as such am willing to listen to any type of debate argument. That should describe my paradigm pretty well. This includes: K, Topicality, Policy, Stock Issues, and Counterplans. I may be missing something in that list, but I will listen to it.

Some notes on what I would like in round:

-Please impact your arguments, I understand most impact scenarios - but feel free to summarize (it only helps you) -Sign posting should stand out from the rest of your reading (watch to make sure I right them) -Other than that speed is okay with me -Being organized in your speeches is beneficial (doesn't have to be line by line, but jumping around means I am spending more time trying to follow you than weighing your arguments) -Road-maps are not timed when they are short, please give them and please follow them, it goes along with being organized -Open cross-x is okay when it is limited, the person who is supposed to be speaking should do 90% of the cross-x -Clash **THIS IS A BIG ONE:** Counter the opponents arguments, analyze the evidence, why is yours better -Weigh the round, perhaps show how you weigh the round using different paradigms -Be polite

Other Information:
 * 1) Who should you //not// judge? I have not been a coach for 2 years now, but I did coach at Waukesha South.
 * 2) Were you a policy debater in high school? Yes, I debated in VSS for three years.
 * 3) Are you a coach of a team? I coach for 4-5 years at Waukesha South.
 * 4) Did you debate in college? No I did not.
 * 5) How long have you been involved with debate? I have been involved in debate for 11 years now, and have been judging for 7.
 * 6) What are your thoughts on the rate of communication? I don't mind speed, but it doesn't mean that you can ignore the other fundamentals of debate like being persuasive.
 * 7) What emphasis do you place on persuasive communication? I will put it this way, I would prefer a team go slower to be more persuasive if they cannot do both. Speed w/ pervasive is the best mix.
 * 8) Do you place any restrictions on cross-examination? Look above, if you don't follow that I will take it out in speaker points.
 * 9) What kind of debate do you like seeing: one with many different issues or one with a few in issues that are discussed in-depth? Either one works, but I prefer analysis - if that means you need to only have a few issues than that's okay.
 * 10) What are your thoughts on Topicality? No Preference.
 * 11) What does the negative need to do in order to win on Topicality? Prove the other team is not topical, and give me reasons to vote on it.
 * 12) Do you need to see in round abuse or is potential enough? Prefer actual abuse, but if you feel you can argue potential abuse go for it.
 * 13) What are your thoughts on Counterplans? No Preference.
 * 14) Do they need to be non-topical or just competitive? A counter plan is supposed to be non-topical.
 * 15) What are your thoughts on Kritiks/critiques? No Preference.
 * 16) How do you weigh different kinds of impacts? I don't put any weight on one or the other, as a debater you can try to influence me on this.
 * 17) What are your thoughts on theory? If you can argue it well go for it, just a note to the other team - refute it if you need to, offer a competing viewpoint.