I vote for the team that debates the best. That's my paradigm.

If forced to pick a point of view I would call myself a policy maker. I debated for 8 years in high school and college (NDT style) and am open to just about any argument so long as it is debated well. This includes critical arguments, performance, theory, etc.

Other points that may help you adapt to me:

Speed. You can go as fast as you can read, but be clear. Most debaters try to sound fast without actually being fast. Be clear. You get more points if I can understand you, less if I don't. Did I mention to be clear?

Make arguments: Provide a claim, warrant and evidence for each argument. Number them. Explain why I should prefer yours to theirs. Help me evaluate competing claims, show me how they interrelate and how your version of the world is preferred over theirs. Help me write my ballot.

Show me you understand the chess match: Explain cross applications, contradictions, interrelationships, etc. Indict evidence and explain why yours is preferred. ARGUE THE INTERNAL LINKS. Kick out arguments you are losing to spend time on arguments you are winning (and know the difference). Grant arguments that help you. Be strategic.

Evaluate scenarios and explain how yours is more probable, happens first, or has a bigger impact than theirs. Explain the thesis of your critical or policy scenarios, and why they force a choice for you. If you are running a critical argument be able to clearly explain the philosophy and why this is a reason to reject your opponent's worldview. I consider this activity policy debate, so even if you are making a critical argument it is best to explain its impact as if I am a policy maker.

CX: Be nice. I'm OK with open CX, but I get annoyed when the two debaters who aren't supposed to be doing the CX are the only ones talking. Let your partner try to answer before you jump in. A solid CX can get you better speaker points and earns credibility, especially if it is used strategically to set up your upcoming arguments.

T: It is a voting issue and I like good T debates. Most of them are not good. If you plan to go for T on the negative you have to commit. Explain why your interpretation is better (abuse is not a reason unless you can show how they are actually abusing in this round). I like to hear examples of cases that meet/don't meet or examples of how the interpretation impacts limits specifically.

CP: I guess I'm a dinosaur but I believe a CP needs to be a reason to reject the topic and not just the plan (i.e. it should be non-topical and competitive). I could be convinced otherwise if argued well, but that's where I start. You also better have a solvency advocate if you want me to take the CP seriously.

Theory: If you are just reading a brief don't waste your time. If you want me to vote on theory you need to explain why the other team's abuse is a reason to reject. I probably won't vote on this unless you really commit and explain why the abuse in this round justifies voting on the theory argument.