E-mail for email chains and/or questions:Travis.Dahle@k12.sd.us

tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - don't waste time on evidence sharing

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, at Dowling I voted for a Plant-ontology aff, a Counter-plan on the neg, etc. so while I prefer the classic style, I don't intervene into the round either and if you have a good RoB, then I'll listen to it and will focus the debate on that if that's what you make it.

I'm about a 5/10 on speed. I'm old now and prefer to actually hear the evidence of the debate rather than read the evidence on an e-mail chain...

Public Forum Paradigm

Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. Meaning, I don't want to see K's, DA's, Topicality, Plans and CP's in Public Forum - nor am I a big fan of speed in PF. I love policy debate, but I also love that Public Forum is not policy and it's an option for people who don't want to do policy debate. This doesn't mean that you can't go a little faster than you would for a lay judge, but don't go crazy.

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Seriously people, you should all have your evidence ready to be shared - in fact, I would prefer that people actually share their evidence before they begin their speeches if everyone is going to spend this much time asking for evidence. PF rounds are becoming 90 minute rounds because apparently trying to find evidence and asking about evidence magically doesn't come out of any prep time or crossfire time, but magic time that doesn't exist.

IF YOU WASTE THAT MUCH TIME TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER YOUR EVIDENCE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR I AM GOING TO START DECREASING POINTS! Have your poop in a group people - this is getting old!

Big Questions Debate - I don't judge BQ a ton, however, I'd look at my paradigm much like the PF and LD paradigms below.

tl/dr - Slow down, enunciate, use evidence and weight the debate at the end - do it all respectfully to your opponent

Extemp Paradigm

I am a mix of content and delivery when it comes to judging. When it comes to sources, don't make stuff up. With the internet available now, if I suspect you are making things up, I will probably check it when you are speaking. You don't have to make stuff up - unlike the olden days where you hoped to have a file on the Togo questions Washington put out each year - you can literally google your info and bring it up instantly.

Also - ANSWER THE QUESTION - don't waffle - pick a stance and tell me why you choose that way. Pretty simple.

Don't overly fidget or dance around - but don't be a robot either.

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I have been the head coach at Washington HS since 2009.

Speed: I've gotten old here and have grown weary with blazing speed - put me down as a 5/10 on speed. I'd rather have the ability to hear the evidence instead of having to read through everything on an e-mail chain. If you go too fast I'll let you know - you won't automatically lose, you'll just annoy me a little - unless you ignore me, which if I'm on a 3-judge panel and I'm the outlier - I totally get.

Tag-Team CX - It's okay, but I'm not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.

Arguments I like: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.

Case Debate - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.

Economic DA's - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.

There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.

Arguments I'm not wild about: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.

Politics DA's - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years

K's Read at blazing speed - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposidly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazzingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.

Performance - this is just my inexperience with performance. I've probably only judged it a couple of times, so if you do performance, I may not understand how to evaluate it and might default to the policy framework - so you need to make sure to explain to me the role of the ballot and my role in the debate. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.

As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!

I have been involved in South Dakota forensics either as a competitor, judge, or coach since I attended my first tournament as a competitor in the fall of 1993. In high school I competed primarily in policy debate. I'm currently living in the Baltimore Maryland area and hope to become involved in local speech and debate activities again here.

I really appreciate creative, authentic, well researched arguments that show your ability to gain deeper understanding of the topic rather than regurgitate the same arguments that everyone runs every round. As our society is overwhelmed by more and more sources of information it becomes more crucial that people have the ability to critically evaluate data and form rational, evidence based conclusions.

IEs: I have a dark, dry sense of humor and am pretty liberal with what I allow as far content and stylistic decisions, as long as things are germane to the performance and you’re not being exploitive of anyone. Have fun, be authentic, be creative. Don’t be cliche, lazy, or stale. Show ownership of your work. I’m also judging you on your topic/question selection / cutting / research / writing ability. Connect with me. When in conflict, passion almost always wins out over technical proficiency. Sigh, interp is not a contest of who can make the silliest voices. Extemp shouldn’t sound like a debate speech.

LD: I highly value resolutional analysis and definition of terms in LD. Advantageous interpretation of the resolution can drastically swing the momentum of the round from one side to another. The most consistent predictor of my vote in LD is clash and reasoning. Your job is not to do a better job of showing why your case is good - your job is to show why your case is better than your opponent's. I don't like spreading as a strategy in LD - I think it's cheap and lazy and my threshold for adequate response may be lowered. If you do nothing else in your last speech - make a concise closing argument that summarizes the entire aff/neg position.

There may be more in my policy paradigm that would also apply to LD.

PF: I’m still a unpredictable judge in this event. I do not hear many PF rounds as I’m usually placed in Policy or LD judge pools. While the number of rounds I’ve heard has been increasing, I don't yet have what I would call any consistent paradigm beyond rewarding critical thinking. Anything goes I guess. I’ll try to update my paradigm as my beliefs change. Just make sure you tell me where you are and why I care about what you are saying. Framework is a very compelling argument for me and I heavily favor quality evidence over inferences or paraphrasing. There are no arguments that I reject on face or accept unconditionally. The biggest mistakes I’ve seen thus far is teams not using framework arguments to their advantage and teams trying to close for too much. Have a strategy.

There may be more in my policy paradigm that applies to PF.

As a Policy judge I have always considered myself to be a fairly straight forward policy maker. I feel that the skill of adjusting arguments to particular audience is one of the most critical and useful skills learned in competitive speaking and therefore feel strongly that a judge has a responsibility to strive for consistency and predictability in their decision making.

As a policy maker, I am looking for the most advantageous result of my vote using traditional risk-benefit analysis. The winning team in any round I am judging will have provided me a superior "world" after my vote is cast.

While I reject the idea that absence of any particular "stock issue" automatically results in a non prima facie case. I do respect the importance and interactions of the traditional stock issues and am open to argumentation that either suggests a post-vote world is less desirable due to the lack of a particular stock issue, or that from a procedural level the lack of a stock issue (ahem, inherency) is a valid reason to reject.

On the topic of procedural issues, I am very fond of topicality as an argument. Topicality is ALWAYS a procedural voting issue. You don't need to waste your time reading voters or arguing that topicality is not a voting issue. I am looking for competing interpretations of the resolution. The team winning topicality will be the team that provides the most accurate, fair, predictable, etc. interpretation of the resolution. An intelligent, thoughtful, coherent topicality debate is my second favorite thing in the world, and I have two children. Poorly written, "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" topicality arguments are an awful experience for everyone involved and are easily and quickly defeated by most affirmatives. While I rarely have voted for or even on any sort of reverse topicality argument I am open to the concept as an affirmative check on unscrupulous negatives.

Speed: Meh - I understand it is part of the game. I'm not impressed by speed unless it is unbelievably clear. (Spoiler Alert: It's not.) However I will not vote a team down solely because they speak quickly just as I would not vote a team up based solely because they speak slowly. I just honestly don't think it is helping you as much as you think it is. I won't let you know if you are going too fast. If I miss something, that's on you.

Counterplans: One of the absolute best strategies a negative can run. Especially if you've really done some research and prep. I'm annoyed by lazy counterplans. Conditionality is debatable.

Kritiks: I'm not opposed to them but I'm still voting as a policy maker. People rarely choose to run them as a strategy in my rounds so I don't have a lot of experience evaluating them and am therefore prone to making unpredictable decisions. If this is an area of expertise for you, and you do decide to go this route, please be very clear and spend adequate time explaining all aspects or your arguments.

Avoid arguments that are based on the actions/inactions of the people actually in the room. I am not motivated by the idea that anyone in the room becomes a better person because you read something. Everyone is probably just fine as they were/are. If you have beef with something the other team does that you feel should result in them losing the round make some sort of formal complaint.

Round Etiquette: I time everything. Yes you can use your cell phone as timer. Please let me know if you are tracking your own prep as well so I don't have to call out time counts. Speak from where you want, tag team cross-ex is not only fine, but wise to clarify an issue. I don't use prep time for flashing evidence unless it is excessive or obvious that you are prepping while flashing. Don't be a jerk.

Lincoln-Douglas:I competed in LD debate for three years, so I am very familiar with it. I like to focus on the traditional aspect of it, so I would much rather vote on a Value/Criterion/Morality debate than the contention level; however, I will still follow whatever the debaters determine is significant in the debate. I do not flow authors, so I will need more clarification other than "my Brown card from 2010." Number of responses don't impress me as much as the quality of your responses. A person can give 15 responses, but if one good response wipes out the logical basis of those responses, I will give more weight to the one response.

Public Forum:I focus mainly on impact. Who will be doing the most good for the most people? I do not flow authors, so I will need more clarification than just your author and the date. Number of responses don't impress me as much as the quality of your responses. A person can give 15 responses, but if one good response wipes out the logical basis of those responses, I will give more weight to the one response.

In debate, I look for critically thought out arguments that make sense resolutionally. Answer the question-provide the plan. In old school talk-I am a stock issues/communicator judge for policy debate. Much of that would pose true for Public Forum.

I do not like evidence spew for the sake of spreading opponents out of the round. I can track with moderate speed, but I want to hear some analysis of the argument and subsequent rebuttal. If I have stopped typing on the flow-or writing on my flow pad, I can't judge it. Speed does not win the day for me-signposting is appreciated.

LD-I want to see clear value/criterion debate-when rounds tend toward the policy, I tend to tune out. I was a die-hard LDer who was trained to answer the resolution, provide clear value clash, and wrestle with the pragmatic solutions...if there are any. I like to see how the students can creatively tackle the same resolution-so a less common tactic is cool with me- Again, speed is not my game-if I can't understand you-it doesn't make it one the flow and is not judged.

I love to hear the conversations that come out of really good rounds where there is a clear exchange of ideas and a definite clash-that, to me, is where the most authentic learning takes place! Talk pretty and have fun!!!!

LD: I try to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. Though my background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

I have not been judging on a regular basis recently, so speed should be kept under control.

I am open to most types of arguments.

Be sure to do the basics.

Be clear on tags and sources.

If you extend the source, add a bit of the tag. (See sentence one)

Explain why the warrants you want to extend matter to the round rather than just telling me to "extend the warrant of our What'sTheirName Card because they're fantastic." Be sure you've said what the fantastic warrants are.

Work to go down the flow logically and consistently. (See sentence one)

In the past, I was comfortable with critical arguments, but they need to be used consistently throughout the round and it's the debaters' responsibility to illustrate how they fit a particular resolution. I'm also fine with the basic social contract theorists, the Kant, utilitarian, and virtue ethics arguments if the they fit.

Work to avoid the "they said, but we said" arguments. Instead, clash with the argument directly and explain why your data, analysis, source, methodology, or first principles are superior to the opposition.

If there's going to be risk analysis, work to win on timeframe, magnitude, and probability not just magnitude. At least try to win two out of three. (Feel free to insert Meat Loaf (R.I.P) reference.)

Please work to sum up the story of the round. Don't ask a judge to think or assume that a judge will make the same conclusions that you have. Explain what to think and why that conclusion is the best option in the round.

Policy Paradigm

Ultimately, I judge the round how it is debated. I'm open to most arguments and will vote on anything that is clearly extended, warranted, and impacted out. However, there are some caveats, which will be listed below.

First, I have rarely voted on kritiks. I don't necessarily hate the argument, but I just haven't found it persuasively articulated in a way that would make me reject the aff. Policy making framework and the perm are pretty persuasive arguments for me. However, do your thing, and if kritiks are your thing, go for it, just make sure to explain and impact it out very thoroughly and specifically.

Additionally, I flow on paper. This means that I probably can't keep up with you if you go insanely fast. Sorry, but it is what it is. Figured I should just tell you that so you're not disappointed. I'm not saying go slow, but just be careful.

I generally default to a policymaking paradigm, meaning offense needs to be presented to win the round. There have been exceptions, and I have voted on case defense when a 100% solvency deficit exists, but that is rare. I can be persuaded to change this outlook, but an argument for why I should vote neg on presumption when the neg wins case defense should be presented.

Disadvantages are good, expected, and encouraged. The links and internal links are generally the weakest part of a disad, so the aff should exploit this, through either evidence or analysis.

Counterplans are a very strategic option in front of me on the neg. On the aff, make sure that you impact out your perm and how it would function - "perm do both" means nothing to me if that's all you say. If the neg wins that the CP solves case, any risk of a DA means I go neg, so make sure that you have a solvency deficit to the CP and/or offense on the NB if you're aff. I'll evaluate CP theory how it's presented and don't really have strong leanings on most theoretical issues.

Case - Solvency is generally the weakest part of any affirmative - make sure you exploit this on the neg. Offense on solvency is good too. I have no problem at all with the neg reading disads on case and calling them solvency turns.

Topicality - I generally default to competing interpretations but could be convinced otherwise. I love a good T debate. Make sure to go a bit slower on T than other arguments, as it's more difficult to flow.

As a general note, I hate tagline extensions. Please do more than just "extend ______ argument," even if it was dropped. Likewise, make sure you extend everything you need to. Blowing up an advantage in the 2AR doesn't really get you anything if the 1AR didn't even talk about that advantage.

Any questions, please ask.

LD Paradigm

I am most familiar with a traditional LD case structure (value, criterion, contentions), but if you want to go a different route, I'll listen. I'll vote on any argument that is well-warranted and impacted out.

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win.

World School: New to event, but have had students compete on college level and help guide.  Currently coaching our team and have done research on the international level about the event.

Background: I did four years of PF in SD and qualified for nationals in three of those years. Now, I attend Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, MN (Go Gusties!).

How I Judge:

1) I try my best to flow, but it's up to the speakers to weigh arguments and persuade me.

2) Impacts are second to warrants. If there is clash at the warrant level, I will prefer the side that best explains why theirs are more correct.

3) I will be listening in crossfire, not only for arguments and demonstration of topic knowledge but also for rudeness. I believe that being unduly disrespectful can warrant a loss (or at least much lower speaker points).

Preferences:

1) Articulate speech is nice, but I'm more concerned about content. I can handle speed relatively well.

2) I think it is very important that the second team's rebuttal responds to the first team's rebuttal. In summary and final focus, please weigh arguments in some fashion.

3) In SD, theory/counterplans/plans/Ks are not used in PF, so I do not have any experience with them in rounds. Lest you leave me totally confused, I would avoid using them.

I am a college student and a coach, (past two years), I have been part of debate since 2014.

I don't like paraphrase/paragraphed cases, if you have one please make sure you can show the difference between the start of a card and the end of the other. I want a source as well for the cards.

I love direct clash with a passion. Don't just say you won, tell me why and how.

I will weigh things carried through round more then something dropped and then brought back in the FF.

If you have questions please ask me in the round.

Rebekah Tuchscherer (she/her) rebekah.tuchscherer@gmail.com

B.A. in Journalism and Biology, current ophthalmic clinical researcher

• 2023: Debate Judge for Roosevelt High School (Sioux Falls, SD)

• 2018-2020: Lincoln-Douglas Assistant Coach at O'Gorman High School (Sioux Falls, SD)

• Former high school Lincoln-Douglas debater (Milbank, SD)

Public Forum

This event was created with the intention of accessibility, meaning that your speech should be 1) at a delivery rate that is easy to keep on a paper flow, and 2) use high-level debate terminology sparingly. I prefer a speed of about 4-6 on a 1-10 scale, but if I can't understand or keep up with parts of your case, it likely will not make it on my flow or be weighed in the round. Efficiency and effectiveness are key.

The debates I appreciate the most are those when debaters can recognize and articulate when apples are being compared to oranges. I don't like giving points to a team just because they have a bigger number / claim a larger impact, but can easily vote for a team that can dig into the source, organization or methodology used to get said numbers.

Rebuttals:

If you are speaking first, I'm fine with you spending all 4 minutes on the opp case. If you are second speaker, you should defend your case in some capacity and briefly respond to arguments made on your case. At minimum, you must answer turns. This is not to say I think you need to go for everything in second rebuttal. I’m fine with strategic thinking and collapsing when necessary.

Summary/FF:

As a judge of mostly Lincoln-Douglas, I LOVE some clear voting issues. I don't think that a line-by-line argumentation style is typically necessary and prefer a nice crystalization.

Crossfire:

Good, respectful and effective cross examinations are appreciated and a great way to up your speaker points.

Theory/Kritiks/Counterplans/Plans:

Please don't.

Extra Notes

• Anything excessively past time (5+ seconds) on your speech can be dropped from the round. I won't flow it, and I won't expect your opponent to respond to it.
• I don't care how you dress, if you sit, stand, etc. Debate should be comfortable and accessible.
• Collapsing and making strategic decisions in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary is an expectation of PF. Try to go for everything, and you will have a mountain to climb for a win.
• Rudeness in cross will lose you speaker points. You can make strategic offensive rhetorical decisions to put your opponent on the defensive, but there is a difference. Please be kind. :)

Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: amwelter12@ole.augie.edu

Short version

Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.

PF - Big fan of disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory, but I'm iffy on most other theory. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important.

LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.

Long version

I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.

Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.

My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):

Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.

I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.

Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.

Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jerk to your opponent.

I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.