Su,+Anthony

I personally feel that the time limit for speeches was created to represent a certain opportunity cost with regard to time for arguments. This means concise is good, but cutting essential details so each argument takes less time is not. For the most part, judges can tell the difference between a good debater who can debate at a fast pace, and someone who tries to get by by blasting their opponent off the flow and hoping for a cheap win. For example, I've never seen an LD round where 3+off was even remotely justified. I generally dislike spreading, but if you're going to do it, make sure everyone in the room understands. Benefits to this philosophy (if you want to call it that) for you is that I"ll accept most arguments if they're logically valid. Abuse, theory, kritiks in separate worlds, RVIs, hell even plans in LD if they're supported by justifying framework. Signpost, crystallize, don't lie, and definitely don't kiss ass; if you're going to be rude, at least be funny about it, and don't dish what you can't swallow.