I use to consider myself a stock issues judge....But I'm slowly moving away from it I'm good with T as long as it's done right. I'm ok with K's and CP's, But I wouldn't bank on winning with that alone. Also I prefer closed CX...and I REALY prefer closed constructive and rebuttals. Spreading is fine as long as I can understand the tag lines.

Policy Debate: I'm a policy preference judge but will vote how the round takes me. Argument clarity is more important than speed but I am ok with spreading provided the team is clear and enunciates enough to hear the evidence. Logic and analysis are also heavily considered but evidence is the foundation of argumentation.

Lincoln Douglas: I'm looking for clash. If there are conflicting definitions, give me reasons to prefer. I view Criterion as a way to uphold/measure the value.

Pretty much tab, I'll vote for practically anything if you explain it well and it's not racist/sexist/bigoted etc. Because of this, framework occupies an essential role in the round as it defines the debate space. Also, the cleaner you allow my flow to be, generally the easier time I'll have voting for you. Feel free to ask any specific paradigm questions.

I am a policy coach at heart with a stock issues/policy maker blend paradigm. I love on case (stock issues) clash in the 2NC. I don't like Ks, but if they link and the alt can't be permed, let's go. T arguments acceptable. Please do not cry abuse and then run 3 DAs. Either it is abusive and you couldn't prepare or the T needs a new voter. For other styles of debate, down the flow attacks and answers are always fun. Be calm, cool, and competitive.

I believe in well constructed Affirmatives that are Prima Facia. I believe T is used as a generic argument to waste time. Unless the case is actually Untopical/Abusive, I won't vote for it. I like to see real world argumentation with real advantages/disadvantages. Unless you can actually tell me the closest we have been to Nuclear war, and that we are there now, I won't buy it. Let's see clash on the stock issues. I would much rather see you debate the actual topic rather than debate theory. This is Policy debate

Spread at your own risk. If I can't understand your points because you don't slow down and label contentions and points, how am I going to know where it goes on the flow.

I haven't met a K that I have voted for.

LD-I just want clash and a spirited debate on Values and points. I will flow everything in the round and use it in my decision making

PF-I want to see good clash of points with sound reasoning. And politeness in CX. If you are rude or barking in your Crossfire, it will probably reflect in your rankings