Anderson,+Amy

__Experience:__ I debated for four years with Bloomington Jefferson High School and two years with the University of Minnesota. I coached high school for 4 years, and this is my seventh year judging.


 * How I approach the debate**

Here's the short version: Debate about what you want to debate about, and do it well. I want to see people doing what they do best. I believe in terminal defense being round-winners (this means no matter how much you are winning the impact debate, if there's no link, I'm not voting for you). I really don't like calling cards, so YOU need to do the work for me. Not the other way around. I try to only evaluate what I flow, not the arguments you might have been trying to make but not actually making.


 * Jumping/Flashing Files - "Is it prep?"** I used to say no. But I am sick and tired of sitting an extra 4 minutes for each speech waiting for someone to put their speech on a jump drive. **Prep time for me stops when you pull your jump drive out of your computer and not a moment before.**

__Topicality__: Flush out your impacts early in the debate and make sure your extensions are responsive. I'm more receptive to rule-making args versus "we couldnt run X disad" as reasons to vote on T

__Theory__: I will vote on it if you explain to me why it matters and what impact it has in the debate. If you want it to be a viable voting option, you need to be slower and clearer so that I can actually get every arg written down. I don't like it when a theory "debate" consists of both teams blindly reading their blocks with no clash and then the argument just disappears.

__Disads!__ Generic links in the 1NC are fine, but if you want me to vote on your DA, you need something more developed in the block. Your internal link story needs to make sense. I need to have a clear story at the end of the round of what the DA is, why I evaluate it before the 1AC impacts, and if it turns case. Clarity of the arg can only help you.

__Counterplans__: PLEASE prove to me why it is mutually exclusive with the aff! I give a lot of weight to perms as terminal defense for the aff, so you need to have good answers. I don't like topical CPs and I'm more likely to lean aff on theoretical objections.

__Kritiks__: I feel reasonably comfortable with most Ks. I'm most familiar with critical IR, post-colonialism, and Foucault. I also have a little bit of experience reading D&G. That being said, I need a clear overview in the block and in the rebuttal if you are going for it. I need to know what voting for the alternative means and I need to know what the function of the alternative is. If you're aff, I need to know exactly what the perm does and why that solves the link. Do not throw jargon and buzz words at me just because you know the words and you think I'll be impressed (I'm more likely to be confused than impressed). A good extension of the K for me would be an explanation of each level of the debate (link/impact/alt) telling me whats going on from your end.

__"Performance"__: I still haven't judged very many of these debates, but I'm willing to vote for performance if you can walk me through evaluating the debate or what my vote really means. Respect that I might not know exactly how to flow your performance or how to evaluate it without some guidance.

__Case debates__: I love solvency deficit debates and I have no problem voting for inherency or significance because I'm becoming old and hacking for stock issues

The most important thing is to have fun! I am very excited to be judging your debate, and I would hope to see that you are excited to do an activity that you love. Feel free to ask any questions if I was unclear :)