Jensen-Ryan,+Jess

I did 2 1/2 ish semesters of policy debate for the University of Wyoming before changing over and doing 2 1/2 ish years of parliamentary debate for UW. This is my first year as a University of Wyoming coach/critic. As a policy debater, I would primarily run Marxism on the negative or do a CP/DA debate when it was the best strat for an aff or critic. As a parli debater I ran a lot of different positions Ks, DA/CPs, read poetry a couple times, read narratives a couple times, anything to get the W. I never really hated any particular type of debate. Overall, I believe that I am willing to vote on any type of debate the debaters want to have. Do whatever it is you do best. Speed- Go as fast as you like I will tell you if I cant understand by saying CLEAR. Theory- I enjoy theory debates. I was never above going for a cheap shot so I don't expect you to be. Biggest problem is probably pen/keyboard time you need to be clear enough for me to get the args the first time. 

Disads- are great. Risk of a link is a reason to prefer a cp that solves case. Offence is always better than defense. Counterplans- are wonderful. Need to compete. Need to win it is theoretically legit. Needs to have a net ben. The K- is sweet. I think I would usually prefer the team that has the best concept of what the k does and doesn't mean for the Aff. Generic links are probably ok. Have a good alt and explain why the k does more wonderful things than the aff does. Performance- ... have fun but tell me why i vote for you don't make me guess... dont assume anything, make the arguments in one way or another so that I can understand them. Framework- is important. How does my ballot function? Do I vote on just framework args? Does the ballot do anything other than give a W? If you win the other team is cheating by running a K i wont be able to vote for the K. If you win that the other team is cheating by excluding a particular type of argument same thing. I won't enforce set notion of what debate is/should be until a team wins one in the round. 

Topicality- If I have any bias at all it would most likely be something like. "umm... I probably think you should be topical." That being said I would run very non-t affirmatives as well as allow affirmatives to be non-t and just answer their args.... as well as make and go for T arguments. **Its not what is __T__rue it is what you can win with warranted arguments in a given round. Speaker points in most rounds 24-25- offensive args with no redeeming quality 26 - really bad speeches but nothing truly offensive 27- base for most rounds 27.5- little better <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">28- best debater in a fairly normal debate round. <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">28.5- best speech/speeches ill probably see in this tournament <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">29 best speech/speeches ill probably see in this semester of debate <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">29.5 Best speech/speeches I have ever seen <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">30 best speech/speeches possible. You will know you were awarded these if I do some sort of bow or feet kissing after the round. <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">*Some consideration given to speeches that radically alter my view of debate. OR Make a given debate understandable/awesome just by virtue of their speech/speeches/presence. OR Provide an alternative interesting and original way of looking at debate that stands apart from traditional debate practices in a positive and enjoyable way. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">