Marcu,+Mike

Mostly I'm tab, but there are a few things you should know. I have a few years experience judging novice and JV level policy. I understand arguments well enough but you are safer erring on the side of overexplaining complicated issues. I like well warranted debates. The biggest issue for me is that there is a significant amount of clash in the round. If you do not clash well with your opponnent you will have a hard time getting my vote.

Speed - I can handle some speed but if you blaze through your speech I will most likely not understand what you are saying. If you become incomprehensible and persist in it I will simply stop listening and you will have a tough time winning.

T - I lean towards reasonability. I am not well versed on debate theory so these debates will most likely not be won by clever standard manipulation. The best way to win on T is to have a clear and obvious violation with a strong abuse story.

Theory - I am not good with theory arguments over all. You will have to slow down and much like T give a clear violation and abuse story to get a vote. I lean more towards rejecting the argument than the team. If you were spreading before you had better slow down here. Condo is probably ok, but know that if you spread to get 11 off I will have a hard time keeping track of everything.

DA/CP - I'm comfortable with this. Just explain what your counterplan does. Perms also need to be explained.

Kritiks - I am not the judge for these. I don't have a bias so if you want to run one feel free to, but I do not know the literature or the theory well at all. You had best explain it very clearly and very simply.