Bender,+Sean

I prefer a policymaking framework, offense vs. defense. My ideal round would center around DAs, CPs, and solvency arguments, with smart impact calculus. I am ok with kritiks as long as they have specific links, a clear framework, and a clear alternative that actually advocates for something concrete. And if you're going to run one, I will be much more convinced if you're genuine about it, rather than say running it alongside a pointless topicality argument and a politics disad. I probably need to see in-round abuse on topicality, and definitely on theory. I don't like time-suck arguments. Of course, these are only my preferences, and at the end of the day I will consider any argument or adopt any framework if you convince me. I promise I won't be offended if you choose to run something that might conflict with these.

 I prefer fewer, better-developed arguments, especially in rebuttals, and I need speaking to be enunciated, even if that means not going too fast. Like any human being, I am influenced by persuasive speaking, and it might help you in a close round, especially since how you present an argument has a lot to do with how much weight a judge will give to that argument. You can still go fast, but at least vary your speed and intonation at key points. Ultimately I judge the round entirely off the flow (as much as any human being can).