I have very little preference on a good portion of the "Rebuttal and Crystallization" section. If debaters apply arguments well, I'm not going to prioritize my own preconceived views. I encourage voting issues in certain spots if I had to choose simply because that's what I did, not because it's the only way.

I will not tolerate racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. arguments in round. Speaker points will suffer severely if it is used in terms of the case, and I will grant an immediate loss to teams that leverage prejudiced attacks against opponents.

I am very open to K debate. I encourage at least interacting with the K and not relying completely on framework if one is brought up.

I discourage spreading for the sake of spreading. Speed is a tool and it won't impress me alone.

More arguments do not equal better arguments.

It is up to the debaters to identify whether something is true or not, but I will have a very low threshold for analytical arguments using common facts (i.e., the response to "the sky is green" being, "Judge, you know the sky is blue).

I discourage judge intervention being necessary.