Christine Mellon Paradigm
I was a policy debater and I love to hear cases that present those real world scenarios. My Aff philosophy places the burden of proof on the affirmative case for solvency and impacts. Many times you can win because the Neg does not address case advantages and impacts. Good impact calculus in the rebuttals is all that is required.
I like an aggressive cross-X and I will not chastise anyone for being snarky unless you get personal. I like speed, but I need to clearly hear tags and cites. Don't rush through these or I will stop flowing. Analysis is critical. It is not possible for me to read all of the evidence, so you need to tell me how it pertains to your case.
NEG Philosophy -- I am pretty happy with anything you want to put forth. Disadvantages and CounterPlans can often beat the 1AC. On K's, I really like to hear a real world impact in the alternative. I can easily vote for that. Otherwise, I will give more weight to the AFF impacts. Don't say I didn't warn you.