Swenson,+Amanda

I did one year of policy and three years of LD in high school. The policy was on a local circuit; the LD was both local and national circuits.

General preferences: I can handle some speed, but it's been a couple years, so full force spreading is problematic for me. If it's necessary, I may ask to see written pieces of evidence or written arguments at the end of the round. If you make non-written arguments very quickly and I'm not writing them down, I won't be able to take them into account. Please be nice to your opponents. Being condescending or dismissive during CX or crossfire annoys me and makes it very likely I will detract from your speaker points. If you're really right, it'll come across in solid, politely and clearly conveyed logic.

LD Preferences: I default to evaluating the round through the value/ value criterion framework, unless it is persuasively argued otherwise that I should use a different framework. I am open to alternative frameworks. In LD, I use the value criterion as an absolute filter; if the clearly winning value criterion for the round is maximizing protection of life, for example, I will evaluate arguments that have an impact of war before I evaluate arguments with an impact of securitization (unless the securitization argument is linked to some impact regarding a death toll). If the winning criterion for the round is maximizing individual liberties, I will evaluate arguments arguments impacting to individual liberties before I evaluate arguments impacting to death tolls. I recommend paying strong attention to the V/VC debate and making your links back to the V/VC very clear. I also recommend linking to *both* (or all) criteria when possible. I will not vote on one-line "a priori" arguments. I will not vote on one-line theory spikes. I will vote for well-made theory arguments, but if they are clearly used as something to detract from substantive, topical discussion, I may reduce your speaker points. In the absence of any offense on either side, I default to the negative unless it is argued persuasively otherwise.

PF Preferences: As mentioned, my background is in LD, so I base my preferences in PF very heavily on directions I receive in a given tournament packet. In PF, I'm looking for logical, realistic arguments that indicate strong knowledge of the subject matter being discussed.

Please don't shout during cross-fire.