Olson,+Alexander

I debated for Bingham High School for four years (2009-2013) After graduation I've tried to stay involved in the community through coaching and judging.

There really isn't anything I won't vote on, as long as there is a cohesive voting story and a good explanation for why I should be voting for you, there's a good chance I'll vote for it. I feel that judging should be as less invasive as possible so that both debaters can confidently debate well and get the best experience from the activity.

So let's get to it:


 * SHORT VERSION:**

//What I Like to See://

- Framework/Kritik arguments that are ran well. - Clear, cohesive voting stories that allow me to do as little work as possible.
 * -** Framework/Kritik arguments that are out of the ordinary.

//What I Don't Like to See://

- Opponents being down right rude to their opponents. - Theory/Topicality ran as a strategic position. (Doesn't mean I won't vote for it, but I find actual in round abuse much more convincing than risk of abuse.) //-// Someone who doesn//'t// know what their kritik says.


 * LONG VERSION:**

Plans/Counterplans: I'm totally alright with these, if a framework isn't given, Ill evaluate them under a cost-benefit analysis (Util System).

Disads: Im cool with them, run whatever disads you have. I'll also evaluate them under a cost-benefit analysis unless stated otherwise.

Topicality/Theory: These arguments I am the least comfortable voting on if there isn't any actual abuse in round. As a judge, the last thing I want to do is judge 7 rounds that all come down to theory. These debates are often sloppy and hard to follow especially at high speeds. If you plan on running theory/topicality please slow down so I can grab all of your arguments. On the flipside, if these arguments are used to check actual in round abuse, I'm all for them and will vote for them accordingly. Excessive theory "spikes" in frameworks or cases are annoying as well because I feel like they avoid in engaging in debates with substance.

Kritiks: These are the arguments I feel the most comfortable voting for. However, before you run your k make sure you know what it says. Also, if it's early in the morning and your running some off the wall, post-modern k please slow down so I can understand what the hell is going on.

Framework: If no framework is given and no plans/cps are presented I will default to a truth-testing framework. Any framework that is presented is what I'll weigh arguments against. when making your voting story, make sure you include how your framework functions in regards to how I vote.

Extensions: Tell me what the argument is, and why it matters. That's all I need.

Speed/Performance: I haven't been engaged in high speed debates for a while so don't expect me to follow everything you're saying if you've been doing your speed drills on the daily. To alleviate any pain that this causes I will call clear if you're unclear or going to fast. After 3 requests for clarification, I will stop flowing. I can't support any racism, sexism or classism directed at your opponent, so please don't be rude.

//Feel free to ask me any questions before round if anything is unclear.//