Hyeamang,+Prince

Short Version
The only arguments I will absolutely never vote for are things like racism good, sexism good, rape good, and arguments along these lines. (Death good is fine) Other than that, I am open to anything. So just do your thing, and go with whatever arguments are the most strategic in the round. I am very flow-centric when making my decision after the round. I will likely not call for a lot of cards after the round; the burden is on you to explain the warrants of your evidence. Be a good person, respect your opponent, respect yourself, and make the round fun to watch by making strategic decisions. Other judges tend to have quirks that aren't truly reflected in their paradigms (and that may be the case for me) so I highly encourage you to ask specific questions so you can get the most accurate account of my judging style.

The longer version
Speed/Clarity: Speed and clarity are not directly correlated. I'm fine with speed if it's complemented by clarity. Deliver at a speed that you can maintain. I'd like to believe I'm a fairly good at flowing but I do need transition time (Literally everyone does) so SLOW DOWN FOR AUTHORS. I will say clear as many times as necessary but your speaks will suffer after the third or fourth time based on how unclear you are. I won't call for evidence that I wasn't able to flow after the round.

I prioritize strategic vision and execution but your actual speaking can give you the extra boost to get in the 29-30 range. I will acclimate speaks- they will be indexed relative to the pool meaning that if I think you are capable of winning that particular tournament you will get in the 29-30 range. C-X is pivotal to get you to the 30 so use it effectively. 28.5 slightly above average 28 average 27 sub-optimal 26 below average 25 or lower means you fairly repugnant such as creating a hostile round for opponent or spectators. Please follow the spirit of the rules
 * Speaker points**: Strategic vision, execution, perceptual edge, and clear articulation get you high speaks

Presumption flows neg unless the neg defends a CP or Kritik through the 2NR, in which case, it flows aff. Competing Interps Theory is a reason to drop the argument Topicality is a reason to drop the debater Permutation is a test of competition Comparative Worlds
 * Defaults**: I have paradigmatic defaults but they are irrelevant if justify otherwise.

I no longer hold strong views on debate, so read what you like, as long as you execute the strategy well, I'm happy to listen to it. Just don't make rape good, racism good arguments, or anything along those lines and you should be fine. Don't try to appeal to me in terms of your argument choice since some of the arguments I run may not be consistent with the arguments that I'm best at evaluating. I'm probably best at evaluating arguments that are warranted and well-developed regardless of their form or nature.
 * Argumentation**: