My competition experience consist of - Original Oratory, LD, CX. (mainly on policy)

I will evaluate ALL arguments (nothing off limits), however just because you "read" an argument doesn't mean that I will understand them, especially if your going for crazy kritiks, you should be explaining the arguments in your own words especially in the rebuttals. After constructive speeches my preference would be that you slow down the spread especially if you’re not sharing documents.

I try my ultimate best to be as neutral as possible when judging rounds, however every judge has personal preferences, here are mine.

topicality- awesome as long as you actually state the grounds, standards, voters etc. don’t just read 1 sentence on T and move on, give me legit arguments. When facing counter interpretations I tend to give aff a bit more leeway but if you think you can win in the small details go for it.

DA/CP’s- traditional policy arguments are always fun judge, that being said I will often pay more attention to the links then the impacts, make sure the links stick

kritiks- kritiks can be cool as long as you really explain what you are trying to portray and why that matters to me when writing the ballot, this is especially true if your debating about how debate should work/look like. My knowledge on kritiks is somewhat limited, not a problem if you spend time explaining the kritik, if you just assume I know what your talking about you’ll probably see me scratch my head (that is your warning I might be confused ????)

tricks - don’t know them, don’t run, if you hide the trick as a kritik lol, I probably won’t notice and at that point it’s up to your opponent on how to respond