I'm pretty simple and will keep this brief. I probably won't cover your specific arguments, so ask me your question in-round or beforehand by email/Facebook.

Updated for Alta 2017 (LD)

I tend to be more at home with progressive debate, but you do you. I'll follow along. Be kind to your opponents. I won't time you, mostly out of consideration for the fact that I have never once not failed at signaling time.

My paradigm when judging LD and judging policy are very similar, and I do not believe there are significant differences in how the two events should be judged.

Because it's always asked, I am comfortable with your Ks, on either side. Be familiar with your literature, though.

Unless you say otherwise, I will default to competing interpretations. I am not a fan of hypothetical harms.

I attempt to judge objectively. Do what you do best, I will try to leave predispositions at the door. It is not my position to tell you how or what to debate. Generally I think cases should be in the direction of the topic, instrumentality however is up for debate; just make sure you do a good job otherwise it could be a hindrance to you.

I am a philosophy major so the moral framework is very important. I want the framework spelled out. I don't want someone to tell me about the moral 'Ought' and end it there. Spell out that the moral 'Ought' is a form of Deontology stemming from Immanuel Kant's categorical imperitive, and that it tries to negate Utilitarianism. Just walk me throught the framework saying some choices are morally forbidden or some actions need to be preformed regardless of their concenquences. I like terms to be clairified. If a term is central to an arguement, then it better be defined. Ambigiuity is an issue.

The main point is the argument. Ethics and frame work is important to your argument. Make sure you explain your words like moral and justice - they are vague words so tighten them up and define them. Polish is important, but if the argument is weak I am not opposed to doing an occasional low point win. Arguments trump period.

I prefer more traditional LD debate including a strong Value/Criterion debate. I am willing to follow most debates competitors give. I prefer arguments that say something matters. It is not necessary however if you can make the other team or individual lose that works for me too. I think theory is best used strategically to make arguments or alts/cp's go away. I prefer more explanation over more flows and more evidence. I prefer better explanation over speed/number of cards.

I've also found myself more easily persuaded by empirics or historical examples. So if you could provide me with an explanation as to why X internal links are the same ones that caused a war in the past, you'll be ahead of a team that may have an impact scenario that is more "new" if that makes sense.

I do flow and like easy to follow debates. Don't bounce around. Signpost are important. Overall, I tend to focus heavily on the standards debate and overall trend of argumentation. I will rarely decide a round based on a minor dropped contention here or there. Just develop a sound argument, convince me that your standards are a better fit for the round, and speak confidently and with purpose.

It is better to go somewhat slow when speaking. I can keep up in most cases, but it is harder to flow. If I can't flow your argument it won't count. Not to mention many people sacrifice clarity for speed. If you want to try speed I will queue you in to nonverbal signs that state I can't understand your speed prior to the debate.
Be professorial. Attack the arguments, but don't attack the person. I am not a fan of ad hominem attacks or slippery slope arguments. I don't mind giving constructive criticism and perhaps adding a bit of brainstorming to help both teams improve. I love the activity and am always willing to give feedback and bounce ideas.