Miller,+Flynn

Policy-

I do not believe that a judge can decide a round without divulging a baseline valueset for which to begin the discussion. Simply saying "Tab" doesn't help anyone. I therefore state that I am a policymaker who uses a common American value system. That means that I will not accept under any condtions, arguments outside of this sphere. For example, If a debater tells me that Hitler or Stalin, to name just a couple of naughty boys, were just wonderful, I will not vote on it. Nor would I accept the extreme philosophies that they espoused. Save your China Heg. good block for another round.

Topicality is a voting issue. I accept Kritiks as long as they are relevant to the topic. Speed is ok as long is it is clear which means some of you may need to slow down and enuciate a little more. I tend to try to not vote on a sinlge dropped argument but look at the round overall. Don't freak out if I stop flowing, I'm still listening. Please address your opponent's arguments not just reply to yours.

LD-

We seem to be in a confused period here. Much jargon is thrown around but, essentially, I don't care if you call it a criteria or a framework or something else, I do need an overarching expanation as to how to look at the topic and your case. I do not care for the debater who uses multiple, contradictory philophies. They are trying to "be all things to all people".

I will give flexibility to the 1ar because of the negative tendency to spread out their opponent.