Parson,+Maggie

My default judging paradigm is that the affirmative holds the burden to prove the resolution true (with a topical plan), and the negative holds the burden of defending the status quo, or alternative policy if they run a counterplan. If you are asking me to vote outside of either of these specific arguments, you need to provide a clear reason as to //why//.

On topicality: I will vote on theory in terms of things such as topicality. I do not need to have proven abuse, but instead prove that abuse is possible. This does not necessarily mean I will always vote on theoretical abuse, but instead that I can find the argument persuasive. I do find reasonability a fair argument and have voted there before.

I do not need offense to vote in either direction. If you provide pure defensive solvency arguments, and they are good and argued well, etc. etc., I will vote for you. The same goes for responses to disadvantages, etc.

I do not agree that counterplans (or Kritiks) can be conditional. I do not find most kritiks persuasive, however I will not vote against an argument simply because I do not like it.

In terms of speaker points, I am concerned with good time allocation, clear articulation, and POLITENESS! I am very serious about decorum in the round, and will dock you speaker points significantly if you are rude to your opponent.

I competed in college LD for four years. I can keep up with your speed, but you should always consider your opponent and clarity in the round. Speaking fast but incomprehensible is bad not only for you, but for your opponent. A good debater is CLEAR and SUCCINT, not just fast.