Grant,+Racy

I am a policy/stock judge. Tell me where you are going on the flow. Don't leave it up to me to read your mind. I want to have as little interference in the round as possible. You debate the round, but here are some preset mindsets you might want to be aware of. DAs - Love them. Generics ok with good link articulation and a good story.

CPs - Love them. Don't really like utopian CPs (i.e. anarchy, free market, etc) but the debate is ultimately in the hands of the debaters.

T - Fine with T. Must have abuse story

Ks - Not very read on most of the literature. Must be clearly applicable and within bounds of resolutional debate.

Conditionality - I don't particularly enjoy this if there are massively contradictory worlds. 2-3 worlds is ok if legit. I just want to hear an educational debate.

Inherency - This is the reason I am stock. I WILL vote on inherency.

Theory - Depends on the argument. Anything you can convince me of, I will vote.

Speed - No gasping for breath. I will be fine as long as it's clear, but in the last rebuttals you will be much more persuasive if you slow down.


 * LD**

I want to hear a good value/criterion debate. They ARE necessary to win. Contentions need to directly support value/criterion. I like pragmatic as well as philosophical arguments.

Ks - Not big on them. As long as its not too crazy i'm ok with it.

CPs - As long as there is not an advocation with an actual plan, but i'm ok with advocating alternate theories or philosophies. I've never really heard a true CP in LD.