McCool,+Christopher

I evaluate a round based on what the debaters tell me my decision calculus should be based on. If neither team agrees on a framework I should evaluate, then there should be a debate about whose framework is better and why. From there, in-round issues (discourse, cheating gripes, etc), gateway issues, then substance. That is, of course, unless there is a debate about the order of in which I should evaluate in the round.

I am not predisposed against any particular type of argument, inherency, disads, k's, etc. I do, however, have my preferences within those categories. I prefer specific links or at least a good story about how your particular disad/kritik/theory argument links to the affirmative. Of course, that doesn't mean I'll not look at a complete set of generics. I just think that you make it a bit more of an uphill battle for yourself if you do.

I hate sloppy and blippy theory throw-downs and get particularly annoyed by theory debates that are never actually contextualized to the round.

I'd say I'm an 8 of 10 on speed, these days. Open CX is fine.

Do not be a jerk in round. While I won't drop you automatically if you are, it will hurt your speaker points drastically. This can and has prevented people from breaking before.

I like strategy and tactics to be employed throughout the debate more than just standing up and throwing a bunch of arguments out there. This entails how you work together as a team, how your arguments work together, time allocation, prep time allocation, etc. This means I like K's that have some subtlety and finesse and good PIC/disad/solvency debates.