Martinson,+Megan

Some starter information, I was a policy debater at Roseville High School for 4 years, did parlimentary debate at Mankato State University, and now coach policy debate at Roseville High School in my 4th year. I am also in my 4th year judging policy debate.

General comments: 1- I ultimately consider myself a policy-maker. I like body counts, and I don't like arguments about the possibility of in-round abuse. 2- I don't mind speed at all. As with most modern judges, the only time I don't like speed is when it compromises clarity or education in the round. 3- Evidentiary debates should be solved in your speeches. I don't like to look at evidence unless there is a dispute about what the card specifically said. So don't expect me to make your arguments for you. 4- I listen to cross-x, but I generally feel like this is more clarification time for the competitors. If you totally screw up your cross-x, its only going to hurt you. I don't usually take speaks because of cross-x, but if you dominate I might add. 5- If you make the debate interesting for me to judge, you'll get higher speaks. I like judging weird arguments as long as they're run well.

Topicality: I really dislike making my RFD exclusively on T. Be it Neg or Aff with their RVIs, unless there is specified in-round abuse, I generally like to vote on other actual arguments. I'm not saying that if a team drops T I won't accept it as a voting issue, but don't hinge your Neg strat on it. I like breadth in a topic and think that most debaters are smart enough to get the depth necessary.

Kritiks: I have read through much of the literature that common K's cite. This means that if you run a K well, I will be more likely to vote on it. If you don't know what you're saying, I will virtually never vote on it.

I keep a good flow, and welcome questions about where I voted after the round.