Richter,+Jake

I'll judge mainly based on what the debaters tell me (obviously) I have no particular preference to the way that arguments are presented. I don't mind speed and I don't mind talking slowly, I've dealt with both so neither will be a problem.

Speaker Points- Even though I don't have a particular preference to the style. I tend to give higher speaker points for those that are clear. I have also noticed that if you can read faster and clear I tend to give those debaters higher speaker points. I'm just stating a general trend of mine. However, if you speak slow and clear I'm not gonna take any points away from you.

Theory- Theory has a purpose for calling out abuse in the round. I know how theory works and both debaters should tell me how its gonna break down in the round when compared with on case arguments. Don't Read theory just to read it, there are legitimate reasons to read theory, but there are a few legitimate reasons. Note: I'm ok with condo good/bad arguments there are some abuses that can happen there. From there I would say don't read it just to read it

Topicality- Topicality- I'm down with topicality. I think that there are way more violations of topicality violations that could be called out. I also in general believe that this may be beneficial for some clarity on the topic area.

RVI's- RVIs are probably good in that they serve a purpose against frivolous theory arguments. But I won't automatically give you one unless you give me a reason (a counter interpretation would be a good reason to have an RVI) If you tell me RVIs are good and there is no response to it then I'll vote on an RVI, same applies if I get told RVIs are bad, but I won't vote on it then obviously

Framework- I think framework is useful for debaters to use, but if you don't give me an explicit framework then I'll either default util. But if you tell me another impact is way more important than others without a typical Criterion/Standard form, then that will be ok.

Overall framework is important for making it clear what is more important in a round, but there are other ways to establish what is more important or what is offense/defense. As long as I know what to care about and why then I'm a happy judge- or I'll default util and I'll still be a happy judge

CP- Yeah I'm down read them

DAs- Yeah I'm down read them

Plans- Yeah, I'm down read them

Stock LD cases - Yeah, I'm down read them (They may not be as strategic at times but thats your choice)

Ks- Yeah I'm down read them- critical literature belongs in LD I encourage it- unless you're bad at K lit or haven't read it Overall- I'm down with with anything debate what you're good at- that is the only way the debate is gonna be good or fun (just don't be racist)