Olsen,+Monica


 * Background**: I learned how to debate in high school in the late 80's-early 90's, when hypo-testing was old news and critical arguments were not wide-spread (maybe an Objectivism DA, but no Kritiks). From workshop education to in-round practice, I had a pretty solid Policy Maker paradigm. Fast forward... I returned to the debate community 6 years ago as a coach at Ruston High School in Louisiana. I judge around 35 rounds a year, though mostly in Louisiana, with a few National Circuit tournaments.

I enjoy smart debate, with well-thought out comparisons, clash, and cross-applications. I require clarity, though don't mind a little speed. If you watched the final round at NFL nats in Vegas 08, the 1AC was pretty slow to me, but the 1AR was pacing along at a nice clip.
 * Style**

After initial resistance, I've enjoyed learning about new critical arguments; however, I will still default to a Policy Maker if debaters don't convince me to adopt a different framework. I am especially persuaded by K's that have specific solvency implications, specific link stories, CP's as alternatives. I am not inclined to believe that my ballot will affect real-world conversations at the tournament in the cafeteria, sparking a revolution. I would need more time and a different venue than a policy debate round to decide if I wanted to join a revolution.
 * Critical Arguments**

This is an okay part of a strategy, though I tend to lean toward reasonable Aff's, unless the Affirmative doesn't effectively argue the violation. Good logic cannot be expressed in blips! I ask, "Is this a fair interpretation of the resolution and which interpretation is better?" Hopefully the debaters answer this within their arguments.
 * Topicality**

I was shocked at the number of topical counterplans when I returned to debate, but I've come to believe that a well-researched, plan-specific PIC is valid. Conditional just opens you up to too much theory against you, so why bother? Dispositional is fine, and unconditional is nice and gutsy. I would decide the theory debate on who had the better reasoning //while refuting the other side's reasoning//. Defense is necessary, offense is very helpful.
 * Counterplan Theory**

An ideal round for me would include an Aff case that operated in the fiat world and Neg that mitigated Aff advantages, a DA, and a CP (and other specific case solvency if CP uses a different agent or technology).
 * Finally,**

Please refrain from being rude, rolling your eyes at others, talking or eating during someone else's speech, etc.