Thompson,+William

My judging philosophy is fairly straightforward, I am fine with speed as long as it's still intelligible, I will yell "clear" if I can't understand you. I am pretty tolerant of theory, but if you are going to argue in-round abuse, it needs to be fully warranted. If you extend, make sure that you extend all of the argument, the tag, warrant, and impacts, and explain how that extension will function in-round. I like a clear framework within which to evaluate the round. This can be the value/criterion, or if you prefer another framework, make it clear and relate your arguments back to it, and please weigh impacts in your final speech. Other than that, it's your round as far as I'm concerned.