Empey,+Ben

If you go quickly it is important for you to enunciate well, strategically pause, and give me a second after you read authors’ names. Enunciate every syllable, and read the name at about 25% regular speed. I need the name on my flow.

My threshold for theory is relatively high, in-round abuse must be clearly shown with a good reason for me to vote on it extended cleanly. I will not vote on potential abuse. Force me to consider theory by investing time in the rebuttals to paint a clear theoretical picture of why the theory violation necessitates my ballot.

I won’t vote on blippy apriori arguments. I'm fine with pre-standards argumentation that is impacted well to some sort of internal standard.

Blippy argumentation encourages non-substantive debate. It is difficult to persuade me to vote for blippy extentions.

Regarding extentions, extend the tag, warrant, and impact of an argument for me to give it full weight. In the last rebuttal an explanation of the extension in regards to how it functions cohesively with other args in the round and why I should sign the ballot there is very persuasive to me. You should be telling me a cogent, complete story of how the framework and impacts within the round breakdown. This is the easiest in round tactic to win my ballot.

I default to the value/criterion structure when evaluating the arguments in the round, but I am fine with any other type of weighing mechanisms/framework you give me provided the structure has sufficient warranted analysis of why it should be preferred. Please, please weigh impacts in your last rebuttal. If the ratio of offensive args in the round is equal and there is no weighing analysis, I will be forced to negate on presumption. DO NOT LET ME WEIGH IMPACTS FOR YOU. Most likely you won't like how I weigh them for you.