Mikkelsen,Madalyn

I debate in policy for Athens High School for four years. I am a freshman at Texas A&M, and I don't really have any connections to debate anymore. I have judged several times this year, but am not that familiar with LD.


 * General**: I consider myself as a tab judge, because I am open to any idea in the round and will vote on anything that you warrant as a reason to win the round. I really don't care about anything going into rounds unless you tell me why I should. However, I will warn you that I am not super familiar with LD jargin or a lot of critical theory. I don't care if you read more obscure kritical arguments, I just won't immediately recognize the entirety of your DNG alternative (aka you should describe or tell me the entirety or at least give me a thesis statement of your kritik).


 * Theory**: Impact and warrant your theory arguments. I evaluate theory as a way to look at the offense on other arguments. I will vote on theory if you have offensive reasons to win.


 * Offcase Arguments**: Have impacts or you're wasting your time (don't have to be physical impacts).

Basically have offensive reasons why you are winning. If both debaters just talk about how much the other one sucks, my vote will be on some small stupid arguments that was weird and unimportant. If you give me reasons why they are losing AND why you are winning with clear warrants and impacts than we all should know how I decided the round and why. Basically you should know what I am going to vote on, because you should tell me...