Windergerst,+Allie

I debated policy for four years at West Des Moines Valley, and for two years for the University of Iowa. I graduated in May 2015 with a degree in English and Communication studies, and currently coach Novice CX at Valley.
 * Background:**

In general, if you win an argument, I will vote for you. Arguments need to be impacted and explained well in the rebuttals. I really have no preference on what arguments you run--you should run arguments you like and arguments you're comfortable going with. I'll really listen to whatever.
 * Judging Philosophy:**

I can be persuaded either way, although I tend to err aff on aff's that are actually reasonably topical. Affs should be able to prove their aff is reasonably topical with evidence to win. The neg needs to provide specific reasons why competing interpretations is a better standard or I'll probably defer to reasonability. I guess things like ASPEC are acceptable too although you //really// have to win that to win a round on that.
 * Topicality:**

If you can prove that there's real in-round abuse, I will vote on theory. I've also voted on potential abuse. Theory can be a very vital argument depending on the discussion being had, so run it if you want/need to, but I don't love theory debates. Please take the time to explain your arguments rather than breezing through them, if so.
 * Theory:**

Totally fine.B Bring 'em on.
 * Disads:**

Also fine. Although they should be competitive.
 * Counterplans:**

K's are fine. I've run most generic K's or debated them. If you're reading a really specific or nuanced K (I.E. something that's not Cap, Security, Fem IR, Biopower, or Heidegger) you're going to need to spend more time than usual explaining it if you go for it as I probably won't be very familiar with the literature. I also think you need to explain **specific link stories** to the affirmative for any K, and explain the way you think the round should be evaluated and why you think that's most important (i.e. ontology outweighs, etc-- you need to explain why that's true/ why that matters).
 * Kritiks:**

I've never run a performance argument, but I've debated them several times. As I've explained above for most other things, as long as you explain why I should vote for you, and have a clear framework for how to evaluate the round, you should be fine.
 * Performance:**

Case debate is good, especially when coupled with a disad.
 * Case Debate:**


 * Other general comments:** Be nice to one another. Debate is a competitive activity, but winning shouldn't come at the cost of belittling your opponent or offending certain groups. Don't be offensive. Don't call people stupid. Be respectful to one another. Cross-x is a reflection of your speaking ability, and that includes how you treat the other team.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask before the round!