Coughlon,+Sarah

I'm a former LD debater currently in college - I'm not particularly involved in debate these days, but I still do some judging.

I don't have any philosophical objections to spreading - I can flow moderately fast spreading, though I'm not great with really short cards. If it gets too messy, I'll say "clear."

My decision calculus for a straightforward round with standard value-criterion cases and no theory or oddly shaped cases is pretty basic, nothing weird there: have good offense impacting to the standard that we're using (either because you and your opponent agreed on one, or because someone has won the argument for why we should use that one), if there's offense for your opponent you should do good weighing to explain why yours is more important.

I don't have a problem with off-cases or non-standard case structure, though I think that when you're running those you need to do a good job of explaining the order in which I should evaluate arguments when there isn't a value/criterion structure to point me in the right direction. Kritiks are fine, though I'm not always particularly well-versed on the critical lit; there aren't any particular authors against whom I harbor an irrational resentment.

I have a moderate threshold on theory - I think theory is important to have, and I'm open to people arguing in their theory responses that the ballot should depend just on the outcome of the theory debate (I have to confess, I'm a little partial to Aff time-skew responses).