O'Neill,+Kate

I did policy for three years at Shawnee Mission East in the Kansas City area, both in-state and national circuit. I also competed in an assortment of IE's. I recently graduated from the University of Kansas but did not debate there.

In general, I would say I default policy maker, but I don't necessarily mean that in the traditional way. I mean that I will evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of the advocacies of the aff and neg (whatever those might be) and make my decision based on that.

If you tell me exactly what to vote on and why that issue is most important, you have a good chance of winning the round. The more clearly you articulate how your positions interact with those of the other team, the better for all of us. Truth be told, the cleaner team will most likely win.

On procedurals, I would prefer that there be some demonstrable abuse in the round, but with good enough warrants could probably be convinced to vote otherwise.

I don't have any problem with critical arguments, as long as you explain them (same goes for anything else).

I do have a pretty high threshold for defensive arguments. You will probably not win on solvency deficits, unless you give me good analysis on why you should.

Don't tell me something is the "rules of debate," because you are lying.

Don't be stupid.

Don't be mean. You can make your point without being annoying.

Speed is fine, although if you're extremely fast you should slow it down a little. It has been four years now since I debated, so I'm out of practice.

Long story short, I will judge whatever round you want to create. Just do it intelligently and we will get along just grandly.

Any more specific questions, ask before the round.