Fechtel,+John

I debated team policy in high school and have judged off and on during the five years since my graduation. I'm an architecture student at the University of Florida but I'm not involved in forensics anymore.

LD (no experience debating, moderate experience judging) If the debate stays in the applications I'm not very interested. I want to see the clash at the value/criterion level, with applications remaining more for illustrative purposes. I guess this means I'm more interested in the 'should we' than the 'will it work.'

TP (experience debating and judging) T: I'm fine with PECs, not PICs and think that the affirmative defends their plan, not the resolution. DA: I think I make the majority of my decisions on impact calculus through the DAs, so spend the majority of your time here. Theory: Do whatever you want and I'll be open-minded -- just remember that I haven't studied this in five years so you might have to walk me through it. Performance: If the performance is relevant to the debate and not a shtick, I'll pay attention to it. Otherwise, if I wanted to see badly recited freestyle I'd go to Youtube. Speed: Any more than 350wpm and I might start losing you. Topic: I have little experience with the topic, so make sure you introduce your jargon and acronyms before you begin using them. Conduct: I have no problem with a combative round, but as soon as it becomes more personal than topical, it's over the line.