Four year PF debater from Indiana. Did okay at state for two years. Broke at nationals once.

I'm a flow judge, but don't card stack with me. A card is not an argument - it supports an argument. Use impact calculus to weigh arguments in the round, not number of arguments. Don't run critiques or theory.

I enjoy clash! I expect debaters to be respectable; however, I love students who make my flow easy to follow. Although the standards: inherent and solvency, I often need the plan to be solid and well- thought out. Think outside the box. Explain all details. Think quickly. I am not a topicalit voting judge.

I did four years of public forum in high school. I do not love speed, but I will listen and flow if you use it. However, I will not flow if I cannot understand. I expect the debate to be trimmed down by the end of the round- don't try to keep every single point relevant the entire time, you literally don't have time. Your goal is to convince me, not just throw evidence my way without analysis. Roadmaps are not necessary.

In policy, I prefer when I can vote as a policymaker- simply weighing impacts on their likelihood/feasibility and their magnitude. I understand all debates may not be conducive to this weighing mechanism, so I will ultimately vote in the manner that you guide me towards (tabula rosa). Stock issues are prerequisite to expanding the debate into impact weighing and theoretical arguments- a case must have the stock issues locked down before I continue beyond that. I believe that theory arguments can be interesting but do have a time and place- if you make any form of critical argumentation, I expect it to be a major part of your neg strategy, not something out of convenience or desperation, only to be kicked later on.