Savabi,+Mariam

My judging philosophy is pretty simple. I want logic. I don't let people win based on tags that they read, I actually do listen to the evidence. I can handle speed, but I expect articulated arguments and even though I don't mind speed I want to understand you - so none of that mumble through evidence tactic.

Topicality - I don't mind hearing it if its necessary, but I hate a topicality debate because the team has no real arguments against the case. I am very critical of topicality and while I do recognize that it is relevant at times - I only accept it when necessary.

Kritiks - I appreciate well thought out and logical kritiks. I believe questioning our world and the use of language is important. But like topicality, I am expecting it to be relevant to the round and the kritik to make sense. I also would like well articulated and realistic impacts to the kritik. While I do expect doomsday impacts when necessary - make sure that your K has some weight.

Counterplans/Disads: LOVE THEM! Counterplans should clearly be mutually exclusive. DAs are important in any debate round and I am very receptive to them. But again relevance in necessary. Refers to K on IMPXs.

Debated for 3 years at Pattonville high school. Did CX for 2 years, and when Public Forum decided to do that my senior year. Placed third in the nation in 2004.

Debate 2 1/2 year at Truman State University. Did parliamentary debate and world's style debate.

I appreciate a debate round that is engaging and friendly. I want to see that both sides are having a good time because ultimately you should be enjoying the debate. Jokes are fine. Play nice. Show me you know what you are truly talking about, I feel I have a pretty good BS detector, so careful.