Alexandrovich,+Ashley

I was in debate for four years at Coeur d'Alene High School. This is my second year as a judge, mainly policy.

__General__: I am okay with speed, as long as you are clear; if you are not clear, I will not flow. Please be courteous to not only your opponents, but to your partner as well. I will deduct speaker points for poor conduct during the round. As for speaker points, anything below a 26 means that it was a very poor performance and/or you were rude. I rarely give above a 29.5, which is obviously reserved for the very best speeches.

As my overall paradigm, I can be persuaded to vote for nearly anything in the round as long as you provide substantive evidence and solid analytics. I typically prefer arguments that are based in policy and I have a high standard of explanation on the K debate, as I am less familiar with the literature. In general, I am fairly lenient on all arguments ran and will vote the way that you tell me to vote. However, here are some more specifics:

__Topicality__: On T, I tend to default to competing interpretations over reasonability. However, it is important that the T debate has clearly defined/ warranted impacts in the round that are well elaborated.

__DA/ CP__: I prefer the DA/ CP debate to be as specific as possible. Please do specific impact calc in comparison to the aff, it makes the debate much easier to judge. I'll vote on most counterplans.

__Kritiks__: I am somewhat familiar with K literature, however I do have a very high standard of explanation for terms from specific authors. If you run K, make sure to fully understand your arguments and be able to fully articulate it in terms of specificity with the affirmative. I will most definitely vote for the K with a clear explanation of the link to the aff, impacts and the alt.