Potischman,+Joel

I am a parent judge but I debated parliamentary in college long ago.

I will side with the debater whose case is convincing, logical, organized, and well argued, not with the one who tries to blast 400 random cards and four K's at me in the hopes that some of them stick when their opponent runs out of time. I am fine with some speed, but __no spreading__ if you want me to actually understand or flow you, especially if it's a large room with bad acoustics. I will say clear once or twice. After that, it's on you. You should be able to tell if your judge is following you or not.

I will consider theory, topicality, K's, etc. if they are __highly__ relevant to the resolution and round at hand and are explained well to me, but
 * 1) Remember I'm a poor parent judge, so if I don't understand what you're doing, don't expect me to side with you, and
 * 2) I prefer debates about the resolution, not competing metatheories about theory about debate where the actual resolution is barely mentioned in the round. Legit theory is fine. Tricks are not.