Garber,+Shelby

I debated for Pine View School for four years. I did LD for three of those years, and PFD for one. I am currently a freshman at Boston College. I was a pretty traditional debater and I carry that style into my judging. I prefer a traditional framework. I expect arguments to link to it and I will evaluate them only on the winning criterion. I like analytics better than cards, but they're fine too. I want to see direct clash and comparative arguments so I know which to take first. Voting issues are key and they should be clear and concise. Theory is fine but theory structure is not necessary. As long as it's clear why your opponent is being abusive and why it's important, I don't care. However, if you do choose to run theory and there is no in-round abuse, I will not be happy. I don't mind arguing conditionality but you should give sufficient reason for both running it and how one case affirms or negates. I would prefer you don't run kritiks, but I can and will follow them if you do. Speed is fine but it should be clear and well enunciated. I will not flow new arguments in the 2AR and I will dock speaker points if you try to slip them in. In the end, I vote for the better debater, not the better speaker.