Williger,+Maxx


 * Experience** - I debated Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Policy (one year apiece) during high school. I do not debate in college, however I judge regularly. I disliked the format and formalism of the former two types, but quickly adapted to Policy, where I finally felt at home. I tended to run more critical arguments, but that shouldn't encourage you to run them just because you think I'll like to hear it. Do what you feel most comfortable doing in front of me.


 * Speed** - Don't go so fast that you stumble over your words. I can keep up with you, and if you can deliver rapid-fire with clarity, then by all means, go full out; in my experience, however, there are very few debaters out there who can accomplish both. One of my pet peeves in Policy debate specifically is that novices tend to learn how to spread before they learn how to make substantial arguments. Beware of this trade-off.

__**Specific Arguments**__


 * Topicality -** If you go for T, go for T and nothing else. I tend to lean aff unless there is a clear violation. Specific instances of abuse are the best way to win T in front of me.


 * Procedurals** - Same as T.


 * Theory** - Too often, these "debates" have minimal clash and involve both teams just reading their condo/dispo/whatever good/bad blocks back and forth at each other. This annoys me to no end. Nuanced theory debates are incredibly fun, however.


 * Disads/CPs** - They're fine. Make sure to contextualize your links to their case.


 * Kritiks** - My wheelhouse. Chances are, I know what your authors are actually saying, which can be either very good or very bad for you. In general, I demand much more out of a critique debate than, for instance, a politics disad, and expect you to be familiar with the literature base from which you derive your evidence.


 * Case** - The long lost art of case debate. Point out contradictions, turn impacts, multiple alternate causes - all of these arguments are highly intuitive, don't necessitate carded evidence, and are underused.

-While I understand that some new applications are inevitable in rebuttals, I won't hesitate to discount arguments that are brand new. If you can't tell whether or not an argument is new, you probably want to err on the side of caution. -Be smart, react dynamically to the round, and always be thinking of how the round as a whole is being framed. Whereas many debaters are skilled at the technical aspects, cohesive and well-thought out strategies seem to be few and far between. Have a plan going into the round. If you can control the pace, and make me pay attention to the arguments that you're winning, you have a much greater likelihood of winning my ballot.
 * Other** - If you aren't funny, don't try to be. If you can make me laugh, however, I'll bump your speaks.