Greetings! You have stumbled upon my very quickly thrown-together paradigm. I'm a former high school (mainly parli) and current APDA debater. Here are the highlights of what you might be interested to know about my debate preferences:

• If you speak quickly, I'll be able to follow you, but quality over quantity always
• If you give me a framework/metric/weighing mechanism, I will listen to you & judge based on that (if there are competing frameworks, tell me why yours is better or you win under both)
• If you weigh impacts in your rebuttal (or for PF summary/final speeches), you will make me very happy
• If you don't give me models/examples/very sound logic, I probably won't buy your argument
• If you speak for longer than your grace period, I stop flowing
• The more signposts the better!

Solid weighing, and put the words in my mouth assume I don't know how to think anything that isn't basic linking weight and impacting needs to be done for me to put it on my flow.

I judge my rounds almost entirely off my flow chart, so signpost and be clear about where you are on the flow.

Some things about me:

I am a high school East Coast parli debater with about 4+ years of experience. I am a flow judge who prefers truth > tech.

Things I like:

Strong warranting and link chain analysis.

Absurd and interesting argumentation (only if it's well warranted)

Weighing major ideas

Organized speeches - signposting makes my day

Every time you make me laugh = +1 speaker point

Thing's I don't like:

K's. I will still vote on K's, but unhappily.

Spreading. It gives me a massive headache.

If you say the word "impact calculus" and don't actually weigh! I will bang my head on the table.

Example tennis. Examples are not the same as warrants.

Rude or pretentious debaters