Suresh,+Priya

__**Types of arguments**__: I am open to any type of argumentation, whether it is “traditional” or “nontraditional,” as long as you have a claim, warrant, impact structure to your argument. I’ll vote for an argument even if I don’t personally agree with it. Along those lines: I’m not going to vote for an argument solely because you cite someone famous; it has to make logical sense and you have to impact it to the round.

__**Speed**__: I am not a fan of speed, and if you go too fast, then my flow will be messy and I won’t be able to understand your arguments as well. I prefer quality over quantity, so if you can really explain a few arguments, then I’ll vote on that. Just because you have more arguments doesn’t mean I’ll vote for them automatically, or that your opponent will be at a disadvantage if he/she has fewer arguments than you do.

__**How I Make Decisions**__: Please weigh your arguments! At the end of the round, I’ll have a whole bunch of voters to evaluate, and if you and your opponent have stuff you’re winning, then the only way I don’t have to intervene is if you tell me why your arguments trump theirs. To get my ballot you should clearly articulate why I should look to your standard or your arguments first. I hate intervening (it is arbitrary), but I will if there is no weighing mechanism presented to me in the round. I will basically make my decisions the way you tell me to in round, provided that you are articulate and logical as to why I should vote using your standard or criterion. Also, signpost! It is to your advantage to tell me exactly where to write each argument down so I’m not confused. Especially if you’re going to use speed, then you absolutely have to signpost well.