Shaw,+Katie

Experience: - 4 years of high school policy debate at Eagan High School - Currently on the policy debate team at the University of MN - Have judged about 30 rounds on the 2008-2009 HS topic

Generally: I will generally evaluate the round through a policy framework unless I am told otherwise. However I am willing to listen to anything and would prefer you do what you are good at and what you like because it will probably make for a better debate overall, and I prefer good debates over shitty ones. Comparative impact analysis are appreciated and will strongly increase your chance of winning. You will also get better speaker points from me if you are nice and funny. I dislike people who are mean in round.

More specifically:

Topicality: My threshold for voting on topicality is pretty high. I am more likely to vote on topicality if there is specific in round abuse or if the case just isn't topical and the neg has a case specific definition/ev. That being said, if the Aff drops T or significantly under covers the T I will vote on it the neg puts some work into extending it. I will not vote on an RVI, or anything other offense the aff puts on T.

Theory: My view on theory is similar to topicality. If you are planning on going for theory in front of me you should slow down and impact it the first time it's read in the debate. I'm not likely to vote on theory unless there is specific abuse or it is impacted well through out the entire debate. However, this doesn't mean that it can be undercovered/dropped.

Case: Case defense and solvency mitigation are pretty much always a good idea, especially if you plan on going for a CP or disad.

Disads: Disads are good, the more specific the better. MAKE IMPACT ANALYSIS.

CPs: I am fine with counterplans. The more topic specific solvency the better. Consult/ generic counterplans are fine, but topic specific ev is always prefered. Running several conditional counterplans is probably a bad idea.

Kritiks: I prefer kritiks that have alternatives unless you have good analysis.

Really, just do what you want to do. Impact everything you do and explain why it matters in the context of the debate. I don’t have strong preferences but do tend to see things in a very offense/defense framework.