Vangen-Adams,+Mari


 * Judging Philosophy**: Mari Vangen-Adams


 * Background**: I did policy debate for South High School in Minneapolis, Minnesota, for 4 years. I attend University of Wisconsin Madison. This is my second year judging policy debate.


 * General**: I lean towards a Policy framework. At the end of the round, I like a clear picture of what it means to vote for you. Make it clear which arguments I should look to first and why. I'm cool with a good amount of speed as long as you're clear. If I can't understand you I'll try and tell you.


 * Topicality:** Topicality is about competing interpretations. You don't need to prove abuse, I will vote on jurisdiction type arguments.


 * Theory**: If your going to go for it it can't be blippy and the abuse needs to be clearly explained. I really dislike Aspec, but if you really want to run it, know you won't win on it unless the Aff seriously messes up.


 * Kritiks:** I am not a K hack. I didn't read very many K's when I debated. ** This does not mean that I won't vote for kritiks, it just means that unless you are very clear, I may not vote the way you want me to. I mpact how the 1ac functions in the debate. I’ll listen to the framework debates, but I’d rather just hear the perm, impact turns, and offense against the alternative. **


 * Counter Plans: I LOVE counter plan debates! Counterplans don’t have to be non-topical, but they do have to be competitive. Perms are a test of competition but if the perm is the best option at the end of the round then I'll vote aff.  **

Performance: a warning, I have little to no experience with performance, make sure you clearly explain the role of the ballot.