Yes, put me on the email chain-
What to call me-
It's easier to just call me Allie. She/her
Do what you want. I will do my best to adjust to you and generally enjoy the round more when you enjoy it. I default tab, so you get rewarded when you hold my hand and tell me how/why to vote. I lean towards tech over truth, but you still need to warrant out your arguments and concessions are not necessarily automatic losses. Specific over generic, depth over breath, clarity over speed. Impact calc is very important to me. I will read ev during prep. I will clear call (but I try to be generous with speaks), don't tolerate clipping cards or stealing prep, and will answer any specific questions you have before round. It goes without saying, but don't be a jerk.
Note- If it’s LD, you can probably get most of what you need from my CX philosophy, but LD particulars are at the bottom.
I can go for procedural fairness or clash/topic education or whatever impact you choose to go for. Comes down to who can provide an interp that proves to be better both in and out of round (i.e. when preparing for the debate).
A better definition is an easier win on T. I value relevance of the source in relation to the topic. You still need to do leg work to win my flow, but evidence comparison does a lot for me here. I generally tend to be sympathetic to the aff on T, but if abuse is proven, you can win my ballot. T isn’t a priori unless you say it is. I don't think a TVA is necessary to win on T, but they can be useful. While I won't approach the debate with the mindset that it's the burden of the neg to solve the aff, an aff team can probably convince me it is. I'll default reasonability if you don't tell me otherwise. Also, if you're going to say pref reasonability, probably tell me what this means. Please don't waste my time running boring shells as a time suck.
I lowkey love a theory debate. I believe it is underused in many circumstances. This doesn't mean run it just because, but if you have a strong shell and can prove abuse, you'll win my flow. Explain why your interp is better for the world of debate, not just the round.
I prefer specific ev, but I'll listen to anything. I can probably be convinced more generic args are good. Probably try to have strong i/l chains. If you just say heg = nuke war that’s not cool :( That being said, I think many teams make the mistake of focusing on the impact debate and disregarding link, uq, and i/l. These debates also matter on both sides.
I enjoy hearing competitive and/or specific cp's. Love a good solvency advocate. Explain your net benefit. I'm not necessarily opposed to consult cp's, PICs, etc., but the aff can probably convince me they're bad.
I loved K's in high school. I'm familiar with most of the "well-known" lit (Cap, fem, set col, etc.). As far as post-modernism and high theory, I'm more than happy to listen to it, but please explain the jargon, give clear overviews, all that jazz. I'm a philosophy major, so I have a fairly broad range, but don't assume I know your k. If you're wondering how familiar I am with what a certain lit base, feel free to ask. I like seeing more specific links to the case as opposed to a broad critique of the topic. I like framing/ impact debates against all affs. ROBs & ROJs are useful. As far as k affs go, I like them, I read them, but have a hard time if the relation to the topic can't be explained. At least be able to clearly state why your k was brought into the debate space and what I'm doing by voting for you. Performance is cool, but framing and explanation of how your performance interacts with the res is especially important here. P.S. please have some type of alt or advocacy; I prefer to see what differentiates the world of the k from that of the aff - even if it's not real world.
Things that affect speaks:
I really try my best to give high speaks. If I have to clear call you more than 2x, I will start to dock. I have a low threshold for rude debaters. If you're in a round with a less experienced debater and use this as a power flex, I won't be happy and it will reflect. Obviously if you say anything or act racist, sexist, etc. your speaks will suck.
I love good framing. Overviews are important, but keep them concise. Line by lines are super important. I'm okay with you testing things out, but don't run any args you just don't know. You don't have to send me your analytics, but try to emphasize or slow down if they aren't on the doc. Flex prep, open cx, and prompting are fine, but if over utilized/one partner is doing everything I will get annoyed.
As I'm sure you noticed, I am a CX judge by trade, so naturally progressive LD is what is more familiar to me. Policy style arguments are easier to persuade me with. This doesn't mean I don't enjoy traditional LD, I see the value in it, I'm just less familiar. That being said, you can basically do whatever you want. I'm good with speed (just be clear, I clear call), I love kritiks, and if you properly utilize off-case or a plan that's cool too. My framework threshold is particularly higher in LD. Interacting with the framework and creating value/value criterion clash is what makes LD unique and interesting. Coming down to theory/T in LD is kind of weird, so at least make sure it's done well. Weigh impacts, framing can never hurt you, tell me how to vote, and don't be afraid of explaining topic-specific args more than you typically would. If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask!