CX:

I am a traditional stock issues judge mixed with a policy judge. However, I will listen to all arguments if they are formatted correctly. I believe you can win with T and I am interested in CPs and Theory args if, once again, they are structured the right way. I care about the case and if it is feasible. I would like to hear you explain your arguments in your own words, not just read the entire time. I greatly appreciate impact calc and all its parts. Explain why you should win, especially in the rebuttals!

NO spreading. I believe spreading kills the purpose of debate. If you are spreading, you are not debating.

LD:

I am also a pretty traditional LD judge. I would like for you to explain your framework well. Explain how your value is upheld and how your opponent's is not. I don't like CX in LD, so preferably no K's, CPs, or Ts. I enjoy clash about philosophers and their ideas relating to your case. It is good to have concrete evidence and statistics for topics where they apply. I will take all your args at face value, so be sure to explain to me why you should win!