Ulrich,+Ashley

Name: Ashley Ulrich Affiliation: Northview High School I coach at Northview High. I am NOT a former policy debater myself, but have studied and judged and coached the event.

Topicality: I have voted on T before, but expect there to be substance to the T argument if I will vote down a team. I don't want whiny arguments without clear specifications of abuse or differing interpretations. Blippy answers or extensions will not be sufficient to win on T. If you plan to push for T in the 2NR, make it a substatial debate. If, then, the 2NR has sufficiently argued T and the 2AR does a skimming job at response, they run the risk of being voted down.

Kritiks: On occasion, I've voted on K, but only in the rare instance when it was very well articulated with clear links to case and a specific alternative (something other than, Reject the Aff). It is critical for me that you SLOW DOWN and EXPLAIN the critique if you want me to seriously consider it. Most teams fly through it without a second's pause and only repeat tag lines, with little or no explanation or articulation of the story of the kritik. Please do NOT run a kritik you do not understand. And don't assume I am familiar with the literature--explain it.

DA's/CP's: I love clear-cut policy debating. I'm open to all forms of DA's and CP's, but prefer for the rebuttals to have clear impact calculuses and voters outlined for me. In regards to theory on CP's, I'm open to voting on this, as well, but like K's, I expect a clearly articulated story of abuse and standards, with substantial explanation. I find theory is usually rushed and under-explained. If you want me to vote on it, you also need to SLOW DOWN on these arguments to clearly tell the abuse story.

In general: Speed is usually fine, as long as you are 1. ORGANIZED, 2. CLEAR, and 3. SLOWER ON THEORY/K's. I prefer a slight slow-down on tag lines. Don't make me do the work for you. I prefer not to call for cards or interject my viewpoint into determining the debate. I want you to make it as clear-cut as possible for not only why your points are STRONG, but why the opposing team has lost/failed. If you want me to interject into the decision-making, you may not be happy with the result. I HAVE to flow you. If you are disorganized or blippy all over the place and I miss something on the flow, I will not factor it into my decision, and you can sometimes suffer as a result. Have a clear strategic plan as you enter the rebuttals for how to best win the debates.