Yu,+Peter

Debated VLD for Lynbrook High School. A physics/mechanical engineering major in college now and havent touched spreading in 3 years. So, don't try to out-spread your opponent because you'll just be trying to out-spread me. Last of all, please have fun!
 * Make impact analysis clear and concise. Treat me more like a policy judge, if you will. I want to hear a complex, engaging debate of real world impacts.
 * Slow down for your authors. Clarity!
 * Efficient signposting, extending & clear taglines are CRUCIAL.
 * I really don't mind theory, but save it for real abuse (especially if you're clearly a more experienced debater and are too lazy to engage because you know you could easily win with your 30 page doc of T shells) In the case of real abuse I will definitely be sympathetic. If you do go for T, it should be a situation where the abuse is worth spending a good amount of time on (because youre genuinely frustrated) rather than using it as a strategy/backup plan for an easy win.
 * Your 2nr/2ar should determine how I evaluate the round. Overviews are great.
 * Do NOT try to assert your opponent dropped a point when they didn't.
 * I value depth in argument over a large volume of technical arguments.
 * DA: good link stories, super specific links, solid impact analysis — yes!!
 * I wont time your road map, but dont make it more than 2 sentences.
 * Counterplans are great if you have a convincing net benefit story.
 * I will only say 'clear' twice
 * I will not flow cx (if you're good friends with your opponent, please have fun during CX and be as sassy as you want)