Martin,+Ashley

I I was a policy debater at Fremont High School for 3 years. I graduated in 2009, and judged debate that following year; I've been out of the loop since then.

i'll keep this simple.


 * Policy Maker v Critical**: I've had most of my experience in Nebraska, so i'm used to critical debate. I can take anything you throw at me, as long as you explain it well. Make it clean, and give me a persuasive link story and you'll be fine. I'll vote for policy maker, i just won't have as much fun. Don't make me default to one framework or the other; tell me how i should evaluate the impacts and we'll get along. If i have to default, its to policy maker, and i'll make sure to chew you out afterward.


 * Topicality**: I'm actually a big fan of topicality, as long as you respect it and run it well. I like competing interpretations, but if you want me to vote on it you really have to slow down and clearly explain why your view of the resolution is better. unless the other team totally screws up, its all or nothing (if the other team totally screwed up on topicality, why waste your time with anything else?).


 * Speed**: speed is fine for the most part. slow down on tags and theoretical arguments (especially in "blank good/bad" arguments within a topicality or framework debate [seriously, slow down or i can't evaluate them at all]).


 * How I Vote**: i really value the line by line debate. under/overviews always annoyed me, so keep it in the context of the line by line and i'll do a much better job evaluating it. of course, I'll vote for whoever is most persuasive, but it'll be much easier for my mind to wrap itself around the round if its laid out nice and simple in front of me.

I'm a huge trekkie, please please please use this in your favor.