Micklavzina,+Iris

I debated in policy for four years in high school at South Eugene, and now debate for Macalester College.

I try not to carry bias into a round, rather base my decision purely on the arguments raised in the round. Clearly biased judges are the bane of my existence, and hence I try to be as non-interventionist as is humanly possible. That being said, I have some opinions about types of arguments, as stated below. Topicality: I have a pretty low threshold on T, I think it's a very strategic neg argument and am probably more willing to vote neg on T than other judges may be. The neg definitely has to give me clear voters and impacts on the flow though, and a clear, evidenced violation. Because I'm willing to vote on T I flow the arg pretty thoroughly, so be aware of that. Theory: I think theory is usually a reason to reject the argument, unless clearly impacted otherwise. Conditionality is a possible exception to this, but I need to be really convinced to vote either way on theory. Disads/Counterplans: I am a huge politics hack, it's my favorite disad, when run strategically. I really like inventive counterplans, and tend to give the neg leeway on counterplan theory. Again, despite that preference I can definitely be convinced to vote for a smart aff answer, it all depends on what you put into the round. I do tend to weigh impact comparison/risk analysis, especially in the last two rebuttals fairly heavily. Kritiks: I read a lot of kritiks in high school, and still do, I'm fairly well grounded in the literature, and will probably have heard what you have to say before. I really like kritikal arguments, so go for it. Specific links are a MUST, generic blocks are never a good idea on K debates. Framework: Rarely a voting issue in high school debate, I'm open to whatever you put into the round.

Aff: I read a lot of non-topical affs, I think you get to read whatever you want, if you can provide a definition for T or win that T is dumb. Basically do whatever makes you happiest!

Please ask if you have specific questions.