Maes,+Jennie


 * Experience: ** One year of policy debate at Mankato West High school and two years on the University of Minnesota Policy Team. This is my third year judging policy debate.

Here's a quick summary. I usually default to more critical arguments, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy watching a good case/policy orientated debate. That being said, you have you be clear and explain why I should vote for your arg. That doesn't mean simply extend an author and reword the tag. I need the warrants.


 * Theory/Topicality:** If you want me to vote on an independent voting issue you need to spend a substantial amount of time and tell me how it impacted the round and why it is a legitimate reason to vote down the team and not the arg. A 20 second blip will not be enough. I do vote on T. The most important part is clearly explaining the violation, why I should prefer your interpretation/why its the best for debate, and how it impacted the round.


 * Disads:** If you want me to vote for your DA try to have a more specific links. If it goes uncontested by the Aff I'm obviously not going to vote you down for a generic link. You can extend impacts all you want, but if a clear explanation of your link doesn't appear in the block/rebuttal I'll have an easier time leaning aff.


 * CPs:** This isn't my favorite thing to run/hear, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on it. Make sure you articulate solvency, the net benefit, and why the perm doesn't solve. I will vote on a solvency deficit if I'm told to.


 * Ks:** As I said before, I am more familiar with running Ks than other args. A more specific link is obviously better than "they recreate the capitalist mindset..." Tell me what the alt does and explain to me why it's better.


 * tl;dr** Articulation is key.