Strauss,+Ben

 I am a former debater who debated LD for three years at Princeton High School. I am a fairly traditional judge in that I do not like spreading, most kritiks, and most theory. I will accept theory if there is clear abuse (eg. multiple necessary but insufficient burdens, multiple a prioris, something completely absurd etc.). However, you should err on the side of not running theory. It is the same for topicality.

 I like nuanced philosophical debates as well as interesting public policy debate. So feel free to run plans, counter-plans or disads so long as you explain them clearly and they link to a standard. It is also really important that debaters weigh arguments, so that I know how to judge the round. I would like to hear that arguments have greater magnitude/probability than other arguments and debates about whether this is true.

 Lastly, I do not like spreading. You should feel free to go at a fast-conversational level. Slow down for author names though. Other than that, I'm like everyone else. Be nice to everyone, have good standards debate and crystallize clearly. So have fun and good luck!

 On speaker points, I tend to be fairly average: 27.5 is an average debater who should have an even record, 29 and above is awesome, below 25 and you insulted someone.