Hello! I'm comfortable with any type of argument, as long as it's well warranted. Not a fan of frivolous off case argumentation just for it's own sake, there needs to be a clear circumstantial link. I did LD for 4 years and PF for 1 year with lots of success on the local / state level and occasional success nationally (semis at WW was my peak).

I vote off of the flow, and look for clear impacting into a framework. I was a big framework and phil guy back in the day, so clash on a conceptual level is really enjoyable for me to judge. If you're running an off case make the ROTB very clear; don't assume I'll drop the debater/argument, clearly articulate it.

I give high speaks for efficiency and word economy; being able to concisely work through all the points you have to make and leaving enough time for voter issues and big picture weighing is a very good look.

Best of wishes, and good luck!