Clawson,+Hailey

I think debating how you are most comfortable is the most important thing. I believe in judge adaptation, of course, but you should never change an entire strategy because I'm sitting in the back of the room. I will say I'm the most engaged in kritik debates, but thats because I find a lot of adv/DA scenarios to be contrived, implausible and kind of alienating. I have feelings, and will vote on arguments that I am emotionally persuaded by. I also like trolls and trolling arguments, but there are times where it's probably inappropriate.

I try to be flow-centric, but I do think there's something to be said for voting for the team that does the better job persuading. I don't care about debaters being nice, you can get aggro, whatever. There is gray area, of course. Usually I just want y'all to not be saying offensive shit to one another. That's unnecessary. I put a lot of emphasis on the 2NR/2AR.

I have a high threshold for voting on theory, usually the debates are really muddled and it's not a clear winner. I will vote on it, but that requires a rather substantial investment in framing why I should vote on it in the 2NR/2AR.

Framing your arguments is the most important thing for me, and I don't think a lot of teams do it that well. I want to know why timeframe, probability and magnitude matter in your impact framing, and I want to know what the role of the ballot is/is supposed to be.

Arguments I'm less comfortable with are ptx DA's (I get lost in the moving parts and don't give a single fuck), T, and really generic process CPs. I want net benefits to be intrinsic to the CP, and I want interpretations on T to be reasonable. Also, you shouldn't read Baudrillard in front of me, just don't. You'll lose speaker points and it's an uphill battle anyway.

I'm pretty expressive as a judge, so if you pay attention you'll be able to tell what I'm buying vs. not.

I don't time flashing, but I'm know to start mid-round if it gets unreasonable. Be expedient or it'll come out of your prep.