Walker,+Jordon

1. I accept any and all formats of debate (Kritik, traditional, off, etc). Although if someone uses a Kritik, then they clearly have to show how it supercedes the value/criterion debate. 2. Since I use my laptop, I can flow any speed and have no preference either way 3. My weighing hierarchy goes: a priori, value, criterion, then contention. Although contention arguments are never particularly powerful. 4. I accept anything and everything that the competitor tells me (i.e. if one competitor extends through ink and the other one doesn't mention it, then I will accept the extension.) Also, I do not use my own opinion in evaluating the round at all. 5. I like competitors to clearly weigh arguments and articulate why their arguments supercede their opponent's, not why they win on impact. In general, I find impact arguments to not be particularly persuasive. 6. In terms of Theory arguments, I find these to only be helpful, when the competitor articulates why they supercede apriori arguments and I do not just accept prima facie that theories arguments are going to preclude everything else in the round.