Brady,+Kate

School affiliation: None Judged ~15 rounds of LD Debated HS in 1966-67 (Minneapolis Roosevelt), Forensics 1963-64, 64-65 (Washburn, WI).

Approach:
 * Arguments/RFDs:**


 * Overview:**
 * I am open to most things but have a preference for a well spoken debate with a lot of depth of argument.


 * Specifics:**
 * Both affirmative and negative standards should be clearly articulated, with an emphasis on identifying them throughout the round and connecting them with your arguments. If an argument doesn't impact to either, it will be very difficult for me to bring myself to vote on them.
 * I am equally receptive to both philosophy- and real world-based cases, keeping in mind that your warrants should always remain clear, and I shouldn't have to gather your impacts for you.
 * Where evidence is concerned I prefer quality over quantity; if it comes down to simply throwing around names without further impacts, I will become very frustrated with the round. This means that ten tangentially-related two line statements from the post will garner less respect than one well thought out, well supported, and well executed paragraph that is highly relevant.
 * I expect voters and crystallization in the 2. If this is neglected there is a reasonable chance that it will count against you.
 * If you are most comfortable with, and most enjoy doing, various strategies - topicalities, critiques, etc., I am by all means willing to listen. If you choose to run them, though, you should keep in mind that I am not the most experienced judge out there. I'm fairly smart, but if I am presented with a foreign concept, you will have to make sure that it is well-explained. These also have the same burdens that any other case has: they have to be well warranted, and have some actual impacts. This is the only way that I will be able to vote on them.


 * Presentation/speaks:**
 * A large part of my speaks allotments are based on your ability to continue well-impacted points, with a lot of depth. I would prefer that, unless you give me a very good reason, all of your points impact to some sort of standard or value/criterion.
 * I expect clear signposting, not only but especially if there is speed involved.
 * Tell me what a card says, not just the author when giving a response.
 * On the subject of speed, it is acceptable to the point that you are able to speak without doing anything unnatural like gasping.
 * Be respectful of your opponent, including in CX.