Min,+Andrew

I did two years of policy, one year of LD, and various IEs (my favorite being extemp) in a community judge league (read: no speed, few procedurals besides topicality). Debate was pretty much my life in high school. I'm now on the [|Princeton parliamentary debate team].  My default paradigm is net benefits/utilitarianism with burden of proof on aff (tie = neg win), but I'll accept any paradigm you give me. If you give me two competing frameworks, I'll pick one and judge the rest of the round based on it (winning framework does NOT win the round). I understand most theory arguments and will certainly vote on them, but I personally prefer arguments about the actual topic, rather than what best harms the educational value of debate. But if you decide to make the round about theory, I'll vote on theory. If you speed, I won't penalize you and I'll try my best to follow, but there's a chance I won't get everything. I'll also yell "clear." I try too flow everything I hear (outside of cx); if you speed despite me clearing you, I may not hear it. I have basic jargon down, but if you run specs or a performance aff, make sure you explain them. I also don't flow anything after time expires. My decision usually comes down to the rebuttals: the last two speakers **//__need__//** to weigh impacts to the framework(s). I love it when teams compare aff and neg worlds. Also, if you impact a $15 million plan with a nuclear war as a result of an economic downturn as a result of a massive budget deficit, I need links and brinks. Give me magnitude as well as depth (economic downturn might -> nuclear war, but I need to see how big the economic downturn is). Uniqueness is good too. I also like to see analysis, not just cards with no warrants. In fact, you don't have to read a single card, unless you're citing a actual fact (and I still need to see why the fact matters).