Ward,+Greg

Speed: If a swift rate of delivery can be presented in an understandable and meaningful way (i.e. not just enumerating repetitive arguments for the sake of establishing a more convoluted flow), I am all for it. I see this as a definite tactical advantage that enriches the nature of argumentation for all involved. Just make SURE you enunciate clearly.

Cross-Ex: Although I will not necessarily make note of any lines of questioning, I see cross-ex as a crucial component of speaker point determination. A debater that can effectively use cross-ex to expose flaws in his/her opponent's case - and utilize these advantages in their offensive speeches - is much more impressive than one that cannot effectively interact. However, if the tone grows too abusive or brash, deductions in speaker points may result.

Theory: I'm not a huge fan, but I am definitely open to it if run correctly. Just make sure to fully develop your ideas and impacts, while also weighing the significance of your argument within the scope of the decision calculus.

Overall, I tend to focus heavily on the standards debate and overall trend of argumentation. I will rarely decide a round based on a minor dropped contention here or there, and it irritates me when debaters make situations such as those the crux of their voting issues. Just develop a sound argument, convince me that your standards are a better fit for the round, and speak confidently and with purpose.