Woodruff,+Connor

Experience: I have 4 years of experience in high school policy debate at CK McClatchy, and a year of policy at Arizona State University. I currently coach policy debate at Chandler Preparatory High. In general I try to remain as open as possible regarding what arguments I will evaluate. That said, I am much more familiar with policy arguments and literature, so will have an easier time following that, but please do not let that discourage you from making any arguments you want to. If you are running a kritik, be sure to have a good explanation (not just link, impact, alt, but some of the underlying philosophy) in your speeches so that I can have an easier time following your analysis. I am fine with theory, but need good explanations of the voters and would prefer for an explanation of in round abuse, but will vote on potential if the other teams logic does justify abuse, and you provide a good brightline standard to avoid that abuse. Similar logic goes into topicality, which I will vote for if given a reason to. I have nothing special to say about counterplans and disads, except that it would make the debate much more interesting to see arguments specific to the affirmative, DA's that aren't plainly stupid and CPs that actually solve, or are at least possible (I have seen far to many "states should make international treaties" style nonsense). The most important thing is to provide clash in every area of the debate, especially on k's where people frequently seem to think reading cards replaces analysis. If you can show why your positions are more important than your opponents, you will probably get my ballot. You should approach the round with the goal of giving me as little freedom to make decisions in the round as possible. Make sure to tell me how I should be evaluating arguments, how to characterize arguments and how to weigh arguments. The more freedom I am given to make decisions in how to deal with those issues, the more likely I am to make decisions that hurt your position in the round. Stylistic Concerns: Make sure to differentiate between tags, authors and cards, not doing so makes you unnecessarily hard to flow. I am fine with speed, and will let you know if you are not sufficiently clear. The best way to win my ballot is good impact analysis throughout the debate. If there is something that is not in this paradigm that you feel is important, please ask, good debates are worth the time. If you ever want to discuss a round of your's that I judged, just come and talk to me, I'll try to make time and am generally willing to explain my decision and give specific feedback that you are looking for. Also, I tend to be extremely expressive when I am judging. Use that information however you see fit.