Ivanovic,+Matea

I would like you to debate however you are most comfortable debating, because that's how you debate best.

How I make decisions: I try to be flow oriented. However, if I don't understand your evidence as you are reading it, i'm not going to flow it and probably won't call for it after the debate. That's not to say you have to go slow, but please be clear. I don't have a particular formula unless you set one up in your last rebuttals. If its a k on k debate or "clash of civ", I look to the role of the ballot and framing issues first and then evaluate the rest of the debate.

Theory: i have an admittedly high threshold for voting on theory. that's not to say I am unwilling to evaluate or vote on it if you are winning, but that if it is a mess or there are dropped arguments on both sides, i have a harder time going through it and doing the work for you to make it make sense. Its best when the link and impact refer to something the other team did, rather than its potential justifications.

Topicality: would prefer interpretations be reasonable.

CP & DA: Evidence quality and specificity are important.

speaker points: I prefer more comparative analysis than just a slew of cards.
 * Note for this topic: This is only second tournament judging on this topic. so I may not know all the conventions of T args you'll be running or be familiar with all the acronyms. I will give non verbals if you are not clear or if I am confused, so picking up on that will help you.