Gruber,+Ursula

If you seem like you are having fun and maintaining civility, I will listen to pretty much any argument that isn't intentionally obnoxious or repugnant (death good, racial equity bad, etc.). I prefer lines of argument that don't rely on nuclear war or extinction, but if your case is strong, go for it.
 * LD:**

Clash and analysis are key. Use your case to analyze and refute your opponent's arguments. Don't just toss out cards; explain WHY and HOW. If your logic/reasoning is sound, you don't need to extend every card to win. I prefer strategic condensing over shallow line by line rebuttal.

The burden of the aff is to present a case that allows for debate interaction on the topic of the resolution. The burden of the neg is to respond to that case, with possible alternatives. Theory and K are fine, but If you pull the focus of the round away from the Aff, your logic must be sound. Consider the implications of your strategies and choose accordingly.

Make sure you weigh your impacts for me. I may have a different perspective so if you don't make the weighing explicit, you are leaving it up to my interpretation.

I expect timers and flashing to work without much delay. Having issues more than once in a round will lose speaks. My average is 27/28 depending on the division. I'll dock a varsity debater more often for nonsense or rudeness than a JV debater.


 * CX** is important and ought to be used for more than just clarification questions. Don't be rude or talk over each other, especially if you are up against a less experienced debater. I will dock points for badgering novices.

I don't mind speed, as long as you are clear. I do not want to be on your email chain. It is up to the speaker to communicate their arguments and be aware of the audience's attention level. I will only call "clear" once in a varsity round. If I stop typing, that means I am no longer following your arguments. Taglines, authors, and card interp should be noticeably slower.
 * Speed/Spread:**

There is a way to make most arguments topical (or explicitly attack the topic). If you link your case to the resolution AND interact with your opponent's case, I will consider your argument.
 * Topicality**

I evaluate the full participation of the chamber, from docket manuevers to quality and variety of questions. Successful legislators are those who drive the debate, present new/unique arguments, extend/refute/deepen previous arguments, choose sources carefully, and use parlimentary procedure appropriately. Debate on the merits/flaws of the specific legislation is given more weight than general issue arguments. Delivery style can enhance the persuasiveness of your analysis, but will not make up for canned speeches, poor supporting materials, or rehashed arguments.
 * Congress:**

POs are an essential part of the chamber. They set the mood, pace, and attutude of the chamber. It is a risk, and that is taken to account when I score. POs with a good pace and no major errors are very likely to be ranked.

Note on authorships/first pros: The price for establishing recency is that your speech must provide some background for the debate and at least one reason why this legislation in particular is the answer.

The purpose of evidence in all forms of debate is to support your arguments with expert testimony, not to BE your arguments. I will only ask for cards if something sounds exceptionally wonky. Have some understanding of the bias of your sources (Are they all from conservative think tanks?, etc.). It is generally up to your opponent(s) to point out blatantly wrong evidence, but I will dock for egregious offenses.
 * Evidence**