TL:DR - I will probably end up voting for whoever does better impact calc and better explains the material implications of what they're saying + don't go too fast. Also I really really hate tricks

I want comprehensive, understandable overviews in every rebuttal. Explain to me what the material implications of your case are - tell me what it looks like for me post-fiat. Also, I'd prefer in the 2nr you went for one, well developed strategy - I can appreciate bold, strategic decisions.

Speed: Persuasive, understandable communication is key. I probably can't understand you if you're spreading because I never did debate myself and haven't been judging for too long. Ultimately, you do you, but at least slow down for your taglines or I just can't keep up and your speaks will reflect that.

Argument preferences:

I'm always gonna be down for a good DA or CP debate - that's probably what you're going to want to do in front of me if you don't want to lose me.

- K Affs - just at least try to make an effort to sound like your topical. I'm probably not going to vote on "topicality is violent" arguments.

- K - I'm definitely not a good judge to go for any high theory K in front of because I almost definitely haven't read any of the same lit you have. That being said, if you explain the material implications of your K and what the alt looks like for the real world - I'll probably vote for it.

- T - win it and I'll vote for it. If you explain the violation well and impact it out and it seems believable, I'll probably vote for it. That being said, fairness is not an impact - it is an internal link to either structural fairness or procedural fairness.

- Theory - just don't be frivolous please, I'm probably not gonna vote on spikes just b/c they're dropped - seems pretty abusive to me.