Holen,+John

//Updated November 2017 //

PGP=neutral (they/them/theirs etc) I have competed in or coached almost everything and I am currently the head coach at Lincoln East. I’ve spent over half my life in this activity and have every intention of continuing that for the foreseeable future. My goal is to be the best judge possible for every debater. That means that I both have specific, high standards, but that I also want students to not only stay in the activity and to improve. As such, I’m going to give you as much input as possible to make you a better debater. Please read my feedback as me being invested in your success, not as me being a “mean” judge. This also means that if you have any questions at all I would rather you ask them than be confused, so using post rounding as a chance to clarify your confusion is encouraged.

__Overview for all events:__
Three most important things to know about me regardless of what event I'm judging:

-I flow tags and warrants and only authors if there’s nothing else to write down.

-I will not listen to arguments along the lines of “oppression doesn’t exist,” “genocide is good,” “society isn’t patriarchal,” "anti-white racism is real" etc. as these make for a hostile debate space and are also untrue. I will never vote for them and am prone to vote against you for running it if your opponent's make it an issue. [ For more clarification on why I feel this way, please see the VBriefly article “Nobody Knows the Trouble I See" by Jonathan Alston and Aaron Timmons.]

-Debate is both educational and a game. I believe it should be an accepting and open community in which ideas engage with one another and students are empowered by finding their voice. The "game" element functions as a test of your effectiveness in presenting and defending your personal advocacies.

__**Policy: **__
-If you plan to read a bunch of pre-written blocks that barely apply to your opponent's arguments then re-think your strat please. I want teams to engage with each other's arguments (including T, framework and case).
 * In super brief: **

-I flow internal warrants and tags more often than author names so don’t rely on me knowing what “extend smith #3 in 2k12” means in the grand scheme of the debate and, similarly, don’t power tag or plan to mumble your way through cards because I’m listening and will call you on it.

-Real world impacts are of more importance than imaginary impacts. Debate shapes our perceptions and our discourse often spills over, so responsibility for this is important. This applies to policymakers as much as K debaters so keep this in mind as you debate framing and solvency.

-Weighing your impacts and warranting your solvency throughout the whole round (not just the rebuttals) are a quick way to win my ballot. Otherwise I vote off the flow/what I’m told to vote for.


 * Argument specifics:**

-__**Speed and delivery:**__ In the hundreds of rounds that I have been in, watched, and judged I have only seen one or two people that even approach being too fast, you  just __**must**__ be exceptionally clear and articulate on the tags, warrants, and analytics if you are planning on topping 400wpm (might even be worth it to knock the speed down a notch on these things). I also expect a very well organized flow once you start to approach top speeds (numbering can help a bunch....). Pet peeve: speed=/=clear=/=clarify. "Speed" is for how fast you are going. "Clear" is for mumbling. "Clarify" is if you're not explaining things well (I rarely say this last one). I can handle pretty fast speeds, I can't handle lack of clarity. I will usually give you one warning, two if I am feeling generous (or if you request it) and then will start docking speaks. I am also good with you going slow though since I can handle very fast speeds I would suggest you give some offensive reasons for going slow so as to avoid being spread out.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-__**Kritiks/K Affs/performance/ID tix/whatever**__: I’m a good person to run your critical case in front of. I love K’s/critical/performance/id tix/new debate/most things nontraditional, I'm familiar with a lot of the lit and ran a lot of these arguments myself. I __do not__ believe that the aff needs to act through the USFG to be topical and, in fact, engaging with the res in other ways (personal advocacy, genealogy, micropolitics, deconstruction etc) can be reasonably topical and often can provide better education and personal empowerment. For clarity, as long as you are engaging with a general premise or an interpretation of the resolution then I believe the aff can claim reasonable topicality (though neg has every right to still test them with T). As such, I am increasingly persuaded by the argument that if you are going to be expressly nontopical on the aff then you need to be prepared with a reason for not discussing the res (because how are you learning to be an effective advocate if you can't justify your method and forum?).

__**-Framework and theory:**__ I love: debate about the forum, method, role of the judge/ballot, and impact calc. I strongly dislike (and subsequently have a high threshold for): generic USFG/policy-making good fw, spec shells, K's are cheating args and most debate theory arguments that ask me to outright dismiss your opponent for some silly reason. Real talk, almost none of us are going to be future policy makers and wiki disclosure/pre-round prep checks most abuse so these arguments are largely bunk. I want you to engage with your opponent's case, not be lazy by reading a shell that hasn't been updated since 2001.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-__**Trad/policy-maker/stock issues debate**__: most of the circuits I have debated and coached on have leaned much more traditional so I am extremely familiar with both how to win with and how to beat a topical aff strat. That said, if you've ever debated against me or one of my students (or looked at their wikis), you know that that's not the game we usually play. So basically, I'm totally down to judge a topical debate but you shouldn't assume that I already know how Insider Threat, FISA, or Zero Days Exploits work without a little explanation.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-__**Topicality**__: I **__L__**-**__O__-__V__**-__**E**__ a //good// T debate. Here's a few specifics to keep in mind:
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">By "good" I mean that the neg needs to have a full shell with a clear interp, violation, reasons to prefer/standards and voters.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Conversely, a good aff response to T would include we meets, a counter definition, standards and reasons why not to vote on T.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Since T shells are almost totally analytic, I would also suggest slowing down a bit when reading the shell, especially the violations or we meets.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">I usually consider T to be an a priori issue though I am open to the aff weighing real world impacts against the voters (kritikal affs in particular are good for this though moral imperative arguments work well too).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Reasonability vs competing interps: absent any debate on the issue I tend to default to reasonability in a K round and competing-interps in a policy round. However, this is a 51/49 issue for me so I would encourage engaging in this debate.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">There does not need to be demonstrated in-round abuse (unless you provide an argument as to why I should) for me to vote on T but it does help, especially if you're kicking arguments.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Aff RVI's on T are almost always silly. K's of T are ok though the aff should be prepared to resolve the issue of whether there is a topical version of the aff and why rejecting the argument and not the team does not solve the k.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">One caveat: in a round where the aff openly admits to not trying to defend the resolution, I would urge a bit more caution with T, __especially__ of USFG, as I find the turns the aff can generate off of that to be fairly persuasive. See the sections on K's and framework for what I consider to be a more strategic procedural in these situations.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">This is mentioned above but applies here as well, please remember that I do not think an aff must roleplay as the USFG to be topical. Advocating for the resolution can (and should) take many forms.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-__**Counterplans**__: I like the idea of the CP debate but I'm honestly not well versed in it (I probably closed on a CP twice in 7 years of debate). Basically I understand the fundamentals quite well but will admit to lacking some knowledge of the theoretical and 'techy' aspects of the CP. So feel free to run them but if you are going to get into super tech heavy CP debate then be warned that you will need to explain things well or risk losing me.

__**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">LD **__
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">-In brief: if you have to use cheap strategies to win rounds you should strike me/rethink your strat. Otherwise, I vote off the flow/what I’m told to vote for.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The most important specifics:

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">-I love creativity and being intellectually engaged, so I’m a good person to run your Kritik/project/performance/non-topical aff/art case in front of.

__**How I vote:**__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">-The role of the ballot and the role of the judge is up for debate in front of me (and I actually enjoy hearing these debates). I believe LD is unique in that these roles are not always clearly prescribed or implied. I believe that these are a priori considerations and thus are my first consideration when evaluating the round.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">-Absent a ROTB/ROJ debate I look first to the value/crit/standard so you should either A) clearly delineate a brightline and reason to prefer your FW or B) clearly show how your impacts/advocacy achieves their’s (or both if you want to make me really happy….)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">-After framework (or in the absence of a clear way to evaluate the FW) I look to impacts. Clear impact analysis and weighing will get preference over blippy extensions.

__**Other SPecificsp**__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">-Counter-plans: If an advocacy statement is not made in the AC or clearly agreed upon in c-x, and the neg runs a CP then I will allow the aff a little leeway to define their plan in the 1AR/CX. My threshold for CP's tends to vary somewhat by topic but is overall fairly high as they (by definition) require a plan which is often not present in an aff LD case.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">-Speed: I'm cool with both speed as well as with speaking slowly and persuasively. If you are going too fast (only has happened once in 7 years of judging) I'll shout "Speed." Small pet peeve: speed=/=clear=/=clarify. Speed is for how fast you are going. Clear is for mumbling. Clarify is if you're not explaining things well (usually only novies will hear this). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__**One caveat on** **speed**__: I have noticed a trend in circuit LD towards bad spreading. This generally takes the form of maintaining the same speed for 6 minutes while not providing any clear verbal breaks between ideas/cards and a complete lack of paralanguage. Going fast does not excuse from being an effective communicator. The best debaters are incredibly fast while still being persuasive.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">-For more argument specifics please see my policy paradigm above. The only major differences are that I do think RVI's are semi-legit in LD because of time limits and I have a significantly higher threshold for CP's.

__**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">PF: **__
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-Simple: this is the lay person debate. I will vote off of a combination of who persuaded me the best and has created a consistent story throughout the round. I write a lot less during PF rounds but will still keep a flow.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">- I like there to be clear impact weighing and (when applicable) comparative worlds in the last speeches.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-Don't be rude or offensive (this means that I expect trigger warnings.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-I prefer warrants over stats. Lists of numbers are boring can be infinitely manipulated.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-Be aware that I have a very low threshold for the speed k in PF relative to other events. One caveat: if your opponent is going too fast then ask them to slow down once during their speech so that they have an opportunity to correct (I'm sympathetic to the problem of accidentally talking too fast so allow them the benefit of the doubt by giving them a warning). If they fail to do so, run that K.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-Otherwise, I would suggest checking out the note below on my personal subjectivity to know what things I find persuasive and interesting.

**__Congress__**
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-I feel I am likely writing this section in a vacuum but Deleuze has taught me that writing for the sake of writing is rarely a bad thing so here goes nothing.....

<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-I view congress similar to a round of competing 3 minute extemp speeches so I value things like organization, logic, delivery and content. T o me these factors include:

<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-Organization: important factors include points that are organized and clearly differentiated from one another, transitions, and clear delineation between points

<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-Logic: you speech needs to make sense and have a general coherence. This doesn't mean you need a thesis but simply demonstrate that the order of your points and their subject matter have been given some thought and placed in the most effective order

<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-Delivery: Clarity is vital. Congress is a communicative event which means that you should aim to make your speeches persuasive. This requires an appropriate tone (i.e. very impassioned over an abortion bill, probably more factual towards a budget bill etc). Hand gestures can also be helpful as well as general body language.

<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-Content: I usually want at least 2 and at most 4 well picked sources and at least 1-2 references to other representative's speeches. By well picked I mean that they should back up your point, actually have warrants and be from a semi credible source (I'm most flexible on the last part). For references to other speeches, please do not re explain their argument but simply name check the person and argument and provide either your support or retort to their speech. EXCEPTION: I am ok with purely analytic speeches but with 2 caveats: (1) it must be for a reason. In other words, some bills simply don't have much that you can research (ban the penny bill what up?) and other times debates on a bill take an unexpected left turn that no one was prepared for (often due to amendments). When this happens I am ok with the students talking about what they know as long as (2) the speech is well organized, warranted and logical. I was an LDer in HS and a Parli debater in College so I love analytic speeches but also have a very high standard of what constitutes a good one.

<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">-Authorship speeches should give adequate background on an issue so as to set the terms of the debate while also demonstrating an interest in the subject.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The above is all you likely NEED to know but the following might be of some use:
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__**Non-verbals:**__ I have become increasingly persuaded as to the important role the judge has in facilitating a good debate. This means that you need to know how I feel about an argument. As you are probably not able to read minds, this means I have a role in communicating things like whether you are mumbling, not explaining things well, offending me, going too fast, over explaining something, talking too quietly etc. As such, you can often figure out a lot by just paying attention to both my verbals and non verbals. Traditionally I do things like nodding in agreement, scrunching my brow in frustration, smiling, laughing etc. I may occasionally even do things like gesture for you to move on or stop flowing to indicate that you are not clearly explaining things. You’ve (hopefully) spent a lot of time and effort preparing for these rounds so it would not be fair to you to let you waste 20/45 minutes of speaking time simply because you didn’t know that you’ve lost me. Basically, this means you will know exactly where I am during the debate which means I am (probably) nothing but good for you. Conversely, to quote Ben Dodds, “if you would rather debate in blissful ignorance, I’m not your person.”

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">My justification for this approach is threefold: first and foremost is because you don’t know my life. In other words, I’ve read a lot of books, taken a lot of classes, had many life experiences and judged an unhealthy number of debates. It would be impractical for me to tell you all of them and impossible to fully flesh out how they have affected my subjectivity. Thus, you have no way of knowing if you have explained something in excess or have been overly blippy/assumed I’m smarter than I am. The second reason is that, if you see debate as educational, real audiences respond to speakers/debaters. If I am here to simulate an audience that you are persuading then it will be most educational if I (re)act like a real audience would. Third reason, if you see debate as a game, in almost no competitive activities do the referees/judges not communicate to the players where they stand in the match. Unless judges want debate to be like the often corrupt worlds of boxing and figure skating, I think it is our duty to make sure that debaters know what’s actually happening.

__**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Debate Background **__
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I have 12 years of total debate experience: 7 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 3 years college) and 7 years judging and coaching. I am currently am an English teacher and coaching all four events at Lincoln East. I have experience across every event though have the most in LD and Parli (NPTE/NPDA not APDA). During that time I primarily ran more critical arguments than policy or classic philosophy cases. However, I was ultimately most prone to running what best fit the situation so I would often go for T (a lot), CPs, DAs or even (barf) procedurals. Most of my judging over the last few years has been in high school policy and LD while the majority of my competitive experience was in policy styles of debate (I'm a debate mutt).

__**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">My Subjectivity: **__
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">God is a lobster. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Since our subjective position always influences our decisions, I also feel it’s important for you to have a brief bio about me. You don’t need to read this if you don’t want, I really wouldn't blame you. But, I a genderqueer graduate student pursuing a Master's in Secondary English Education. I have a Bachelor's in Women and Gender Studies with a focus on critical literature. My primary interest is in post structural theory, queer theory, visual and performance art, social justice and cultural criticism. My favorite authors (in no order) are Judith Butler, bell hooks, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Gloria <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Anzaldúa <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">, Frank B Wilderson III, Deleuze & Guattari, Michel Foucault, Luce Irigaray, and Audre Lorde. I have been a vegetarian for 9 years. My diet is meant as a personal act of rejection towards meat’s current symbolic construction and physical production.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">My favorite cases have involved Foucault, metaphors, <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Anzaldúa <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">, Agamben, D&G, rapping and radical lesbian separatists. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">For examples of some of my favorite rounds see: 2014 CEDA championship OU CL vs Towson JR; NPTE 2011 elims Oregon FG vs Washburn AF;

__<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">LD and Policy Paradigm clarifications __ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Below is further explanation of some of my more specific stylistic preferences in regards to Speed and argument types. This was adapted from my old paradigm so pardon any repetition from above and default to the above if there are contradictions.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Stylistic preferences: speed is a tool that you can utilize if you choose in front of me. However, I want to provide the following four cautions: <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Outside of these caveats, I am cool with whatever you want to do delivery wise. Sit, stand, dance, whatever just be good and remember: if I didn't flow it, it didn't happen so you want me to get it written down.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I am big on clarity. Speed is only a tool you should use if you are capable of being comprehensible and your opponent is ok with it. If you are mumbling I will shout clear, if you are stumbling over your words though I can’t really shout clear for that so check yourself. Note that when I shout “clear” I DO NOT mean “slow down,” is sacrificing speed is necessary for clarity go for it but clarity and speed are separate issues. If you either disregard my verbal warnings (I’ll allow about 3 per half of the speech other than in the 2ar) or are obviously talking faster than you can think I will dock speaks (I adhere to this fairly strictly since you are doing really bad to violate either of these
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If the above didn’t make this explicit: I do not think speed is necessary nor do I even want it in every round. I've judged multiple rounds where a slow debater completely destroys a significantly faster one because, while their opponent has made more argument, they are making the arguments that matter. So if you’re good at what you do and that involves going slower, by all means go slow
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Additionally, I am firmly against attempts to "speed someone out of the round." I realize you may go fast to increase coverage, amount said or because it is necessary in some other way. However, using speed to try to preclude your opponent from the round (especially in LD) is problematic. Not an automatic loss but it does mean I have a lower threshold for "speed bad" arguments and your speaker points might be harmed (especially in cases where speed is a tool of oppression and when the harmed party has repeatedly asked for a slower debate). So if you have 30 seconds or more left in your speech even after your opponent asked you to slow down then you might have a problem.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I also think there needs to be clear cadence and emphasis used in your tonal patterns to convey important points. Don't just spit it all out in a fast monotone, slow down for tages, raise your voice for key points, over enunciate the theoretically dense parts etc.
 * In LD I tend to find that debaters do not know how to use speed effectively, too many debaters want to go as fast as possible for the entire speech which is antithetical to the analytic approach of most cases. In other words, since most LD cases rely as much on your own analysis as on tagged cards it would likely benefit to you be cognizant of your cadence and variances in speed around key points.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Finally, this is something I’m weird about, I think that the quality of the debate parallels the organization of the debaters. Obviously this is mostly on you, I have one request that I have noticed increases a good debaters organizational skills: I will not give above a 27 in speaks if you do not number your points in rebuttals. What I mean by this is not that everything you say should have an arbitrary number in front of it (though that would be entertaining), I mean that if you have two arguments in response to her value, you should number those. And before you get sarcastic, yes letters are ok too.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Argument preference Here's what I like to hear in a round (most to least, pardon my hierarchization of knowledge):
 * Projects/performances/narratives or anything else that would fall under the "new/identity politics debate" label (both sides)
 * more “traditional” critical affs and neg Ks
 * __Good__ topicality against affs that are debating the topic (actually used to run this a lot and enjoy it being present as a check on the AC in a non critical round and even on critical cases in some situations). See below under framework for more clarification on specifics.
 * Most traditional debate including straight-up affs, and DAs (except in LD, see below)
 * I am pretty thoroughly convinced that theory that aims to limit someone out of the round is generally oppressive. For clarification I mean most arguments that would fall under the heading of "you can't do that!" specifically in regards to method. As far as in regards to the topic (i.e. does topicality fall under this same logic?) it's a little more situational:
 * In policy only a traditional plan text need be topical (since you're attempting to prove the res true via one act), disclosure checks abuse somewhat (the degree to which it matters, how much time prior and can be debated)
 * In LD since the topic changes every two months I have more mixed feelings so i provide the following general guidelines:
 * If you disclose your case/cites online (on the ndca case list: hsld[dot]debatecoaches[dot]org) at least 48 hours prior to the tournament (so thursday morning if the tourney starts saturday) then you have a good chance at a "get out of jail free" card in this regard because your opponent had time to research your case and provide substantive clash (assuming you disclosed adequately obvs). Also I'm superly pro disclosure after you've broken new in LD so it's also just a good way to win some brownie points.
 * if you claim to be defending the topic as true then it is a reasonable question to ask if you actually meet the topic via your advocacy.
 * If you're not defending the topic on aff then you'll at least need an answer if your opponent presses you why you aren't "topical" but my threshold for a legitimate reason varies on how abstract the topic is. In other word if it's about foreign trade relations or treaties I'm willing to buy "this topic isn't important." If it's about what we should think about another culture's environmental and economic policies I'm for sure down with the argument "I'm personally opposed to taking a stand on this issue/this topic is offensive" But if the topic is hate crimes or domestic violence or education then I think there are meaningful things to be learned from the topic and I'm less likely to buy the "I just don't want to talk about this particular topic" approach because these are real pressing issues in our everyday lives.
 * HOWEVER, remember the above is only in reference to topicality framework and not methodology framework. I still think criticising someone's method is oppressive yo.
 * LD CPs: since this is turning into a more popular argument I feel it is necessary to clarify my stance.
 * Since there is rarely a plan I question the use of labeling an argument a cp since that carries specific burdens (i.e. solvency, competition etc). I realize many LD judges will not hold you to these standards but (as you should have already gathered from the rest of my paradigm) I'm as much a policy person as I am an LDer.
 * I'm also means that, if there is no aff plan, they can define the terms of what they are defending later in the round (i.e. the specific implementation). Obviously this means the aff has much easier access to a PERM later in the round.
 * So I would advise that, instead of labeling it a cp, you just defend it as "ground outside the res." I view all ground that's not explicitly given to the aff to be valid neg ground so you will only be diminishing your opponents ability to perm by running it as a straight up "this alternative is better" style neg.
 * Least favorite: literally anything involving specs or inherency as a procedural. Seriously just don’t. You’re trying to climb everest backwards by running these in front of me. C-X and card sharing check abuse in all but the most egregious cases (I’m talking hundreds of rounds of experience and I’ve seen it as appropriate in maybe 2 situations, maybe)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Case structure preferences: see above, do what you want just make sure it makes sense and is making an argument in some regard.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> The following two explanations are from a my old paradigm and no longer fully applicable (as will be come clear. I decided to include so that, if you're simply looking to appeal to what I know, you can see my old train of thought.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Framework/pre-standards debates: Honestly, I think that spending 50% of your speech setting up framework for the round as a means to win the debate without ever addressing the case (via things like slimy definitions, over limiting values, abusive observations etc) is annoying to me. I used to run these arguments frequently in high school and I actually voted for arguments like this almost 100% of the time a few years ago (a year when all the top talent found this approach wise for whatever reason) so it is not that I won’t vote for it, you just need to be prepared for me to rant about how I don’t like what you do (“Hey you kids, get off my lawn”). I think generally the opponent loses or wins this debate as the answers are easy (there’s no ground and thus it is egregiously abusive) but rarely do people think to make these arguments. In addition to issues of abuse, I also think that it’s just not interesting, educational or in the interest of being competitive to run this type of debate. Strategic does not equate with good.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">K debate-As already elaborated, I like K debate. Do not interpret this to mean that I will vote for a critical argument over a more traditional on face. As far as what I define to be good traditional k structure (i.e. the one I've had the most experience with) I mean not just reading a few cards from a critical author and calling it a K, I want a clear statement of advocacy (either in the form of an actual alt, an overview or even just a subpoint in a contention, just make sure it’s somewhere in your case and explicit) as well as a way in which you advocacy has the propensity to solve (if you do not have this, it’s not a K, it’s either [1] just some critical cards in a normal case, or [2] a 'critical' or 'project' position). I also am totally ok with critical aff’s. One thing I will say about K’s (and especially critical aff's) is that I have still not fully resolved my feelings on the function of the value and criterion within a critical debate, as such, I am open to being persuaded as to how your opponent either should or should not have utilized the value structure in their advocacy.