Contillo,+Mike

Provide me with a mechanism that I can use to evaluate (and hopefully prioritize) offense in the round. Accordingly, debaters oftentimes find themselves in a favorable position when it comes to garnering my ballot when they articulate and justify an order by which I should consider conflicting extensions.

Always clearly sign-post. Along the same lines, enunciate the names of authors.

I have no preference when it comes to the structure of your argumentation. One caveat: I really like the combination of substance and creativity -- smart, out-of-the-box arguments.

Don’t over-extrapolate the implications of evidence. I think it’s fine to analytically expand upon the impact of evidence, but don’t jump to nuclear war without justifying it.

Theory is fine. I’ve come to learn that I have a lower threshold for accepting and voting off of theory than I originally anticipated. This doesn’t mean that you can blip out a 10 second t-violation and expect to win my heart. It means that I am willing to vote for debaters that successfully and substantively run theory. I won’t do any work for you here, so make sure you know what you’re doing before you do it.

I don't care about the speed at which you speak. Go as fast or slow as you want. Just make sure that you're actually speaking.

Have fun, be competitive, and do what you can to win! Just don’t be dishonest or sketchy.