“Lay style” is vastly preferable to fast/technical. I will not flow or understand high rates of speech, and will not read cases/evidence that I was not able to understand when spoken.

My basic paradigm is to listen to the competitors and try to determine who overall had the better of the arguments. I utilize a flow but am not wedded to it and do not give advantage to debaters who attempt to rely on flow mechanics over quality of arguments, and while I expect debaters to be generally responsive to an opponents argument, I do not automatically credit a “dropped” line item as true if it is underdeveloped, unclear, repetitive, or substantively countered in other arguments. My ability to comprehend argumentation declines with the rate of speed; though I expect/tolerate a quicker pace of speaking than traditional public speaking, I both recognize and acknowledge my own comprehension limitations and also will not advantage a debater who speaks quicker over a slower speaker based solely on speed (or vice versa).

I was a Lincoln Douglas debater and coach in the 1990s/early aught years for Valley High School in West Des Moines, Iowa competing on the national circuit. I was third at Nationals and coached several TOC champions.

I have been away from activity and am unfamiliar with more recent developments and conventions, but I do not impose a “value premise/criteria” or any other conventions from my competitive time period. I just generally listen to arguments debaters choose to make (whether values, plans or critiques) and determine who I think had the better of the argument.