I'm fine with most debate styles and strategies. I am however deaf in one ear, which hinders my ability to understand extremely fast talking - spreading. My qualifications are 2 years of LD in high school, occasional other types of debate, and I'm currently on the debate team at Arkansas State University for IPDA and Parli.
I do however have a couple of problems with certain arguments when it comes to LD:
If you read theory, it should be for actual reasons rather than just to steal time. If you run argumentation purely as a time suck and it's addressed by the opponent, just know that your chances for winning the round are pretty slim. Debate should be an educational event used to increase communication. Thus, argumentation should be made to serve that purpose, not to deter it.
In regards to anything else, just sign post and be clear. I can't flow argumentation if I can't hear it, so as long as I can hear the tags, we should be good.
Any other forms of debate:
IPDA - Just run what you think is good. You know what arguments fly and what don't. This debate format seems to really not dictate many rules from judges.
Policy - You probably don't want me as a CX judge because of my hearing ability.
PF - My old paradigm used to be (is this still a thing???) but after getting set as a judge for many PF rounds, I feel like I need a more educational paradigm. When it comes to numbers, tell me why it's important. If all I hear is number after number, there's 0 indication on how I should evaluate them, as well as what they even mean. Ultimately, I feel like a PF paradigm doesn't go much further than that. If you feel as though there has been abuse within the round, feel free to call it out and I'll weigh it how I feel it should be weighed.
In conclusion, I want the round to be both fun and educating.