As a typically tabula rasa judge, I am acceptable of any structured argument; however, there are a few disclaimers: first, nothing racist or sexist or ableist; second, I'll only vote on theory if it is a clear and significant violation and not just read as a time suck; third, warrants have to be explained throughout the debate, as a dropped argument doesn't just automatically win if extended. Authors should be extended along with evidence, since they are how you maintain credibility (and how I keep track of things on the flow). I use cross-examination as a place to determine speaker points, so please participate when it is your turn to participate. Be nice, make good arguments, engage with your opponents' arguments, but mostly...be nice.