Calizo,+Ana

==== DA’s – I enjoy the politics DA’s probably more than any other argument. I am not compelled to vote on DA's with terrible internal link stories and even more terrible evidence. Impact comparison is important. ====

==== CP’s – Most CP's are good and should be read. The exception to that should be obvious, consult CP's, word PIC's, etc. But if you have a burning desire to run said CP's, I'm sure I can be persuaded to vote for them. ====

==== Topicality – I default to competing interpretations, unless told otherwise. Similar to how DA's should be impacted, T should also be impacted well. Buzz words without explanation are an unproductive use of your time. ====

==== Theory/framework – Most theory debates devolve into block reading with little clash. This is not the way to have a theory debate, and if theory is more than a time suck to you and you want it to be a viable option at the end of the debate, you should stray from solely block reading. Theory needs to be impacted well. ====

==== K’s – My knowledge of K literature and philosophy is top-heavy, so do not assume that I have prior knowledge about an author that was read in the debate. With that said, tag line extensions are insufficient and you should err on the side of explanation. Most K's fail in so far as the alternative is shallowly extended and explained; if that is the case, I am less compelled to vote for the K. The alternative is a critical aspect of the K and should be a huge point of contestation. ====

Although debate is game, all debaters should show proper respect to one another. Also, try to have fun; you all work so hard.
As I judge more and more, I've discovered that I am an extremely flow centric judge. Hence, technicality > truth > stupidity.