Lehman,+Jesse

This used to be a detailed paradigm, it isn't anymore. Just __run what you are comfortable with__, keeping these four guidelines in mind:
 * 1) Please __identify clear voters__. I won't search the flow for reasons to vote for you, it's your job to figure out why you are winning.
 * 2) Evidence is awesome, internals matter more than taglines. Don't overtag. If time/rules allow, __I WILL CALL FOR CARDS__.
 * 3) Kritiks are fine, but I rarely find them persuasive on a cost-benefit level. You need to __provide solid framework analysis__. Do not assume that I know your authors.
 * 4) I like theory debates provided that you give __well-justified and well-impacted standards__. The Interp-Standard-Violation-Impact framework is usually effective. My threshold is probably a little on the high side.

About me: I debated for three years (2008-11) with South Anchorage HS (AK) in LD. However, I've always preferred CX when it comes to observing/judging. The Alaska circuit is small/traditional, but I've come to prefer more progressive argumentation gleaned from some national circuit exposure. I've debated in front of parent volunteers, college parli (Worlds/BP-style) debaters, and experienced circuit judges, so I guess my background is kind of a combination of many different approaches. I attend the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities (non-debating).