Getty,+Kristina

Background: Debated LD in Colorado during high school (forever ago); coach since graduation also in Colorado (it's quite while), increasingly judged a lot of CX (2015-2016 update - maybe 15 rounds on the topic?); MA in International Studies (Governance, Human Rights, and Civil Society)

Apparently I haven't updated this in a while...since that last update I've come to believe that paradigms are even more useless. I write it. You read it. We probably both ignore it.

Speed: I have no preference and a pretty high threshold for an LD judge from backwards Colorado. I try to keep a rigorous flow so if you get too fast I will just set down my pen. If you also don't slow down a bit on taglines, arguments and cards probably won't get flowed where you want them.

Arguments: I tend to be more interested in philosophical debates and "traditional" LD (for CX this means I probably enjoy a good K debate, but I also appreciate a clear policy framework), but I will listen to, and flow anything. Start with a clear framework, provide clash, and make it clear for me where I vote. I have a pretty solid background in political theory and an interest in German philosophy broadly (Kant to Habermas).

What else:
 * Please impact your extensions. I won't simply flow through a card author.
 * Give me voters! Probably with some weighing and clash...
 * I dislike it when individuals run arguments that they don't understand: 1) quality over quantity; 2) don't waste my time
 * I think the best debate rounds are those in which the debaters agree what is being debated and don't try to play games--don't try to confuse your opponent, don't try to tell me you addressed something when you didn't, etc. Just be clear and engage with the issues of the round.

Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

CX specific: I try to be pretty tab in CX -- because I wasn't a competitor I have very few preconceived ideas of what I want to see in a round. Take some extra time and explain any CX theory to me.