Thronson,+Ryun+M.

This is general information about how I evaluate debates. Specific questions before rounds are encouraged. I have coached and judged for Wayzata High School in Plymouth, Minnesota for two years as of the 08/09 school year. I have five years of debate experience both at Sioux Falls Lincoln High School and the University of Minnesota. I have judged 40+ debates on the alternative energy topic. I approach all arguments with the preconception that you need warrants to win the debate; i.e. tagline extensions won't beat a sentence of analysis. I believe that there is no right and wrong to any argument or impact in the round. The debate presents a series of risks that must be assessed by both teams adequately in order for them to paint a picture of what is the quickest, biggest, and most likely risk that may occur in any of the realms either team may present, hence: I will vote on any argument (topicality, theory, criticisms, disads, case turns, etc.) as long as you can win that there is an impact not outweighed by an impact presented by the other team, therefore: The last rebuttals must show that the offense/defense balance tilts in your favor by showing **__both__** why you win **__and__** why your opponent loses. Finally, I am a fan of teams who play to win, both in terms of performance and skill. Knowing how to manage and manipulate rounds in your favor will (usually) earn the reward of my ballot and favorable speaker points. Just winning technically without the intensity of a high performance will not yield as many points as you may like.