1. Experience Level:
I have not judged recently, but I have extensive experience as a debater, having competed for four years in high school. My time in debate has given me a strong understanding of argumentation, flowing, and the dynamics of a debate round. While I may need a brief adjustment period to the current resolution and meta, I am confident in my ability to evaluate debates fairly and thoroughly.

2. Preferences for Rate of Delivery and Jargon:
I prioritize clarity over speed. While I understand debate jargon and technical language, debaters should ensure their arguments are well-articulated and easy to follow. Spreading is acceptable, but if I cannot clearly understand your arguments, they may not be flowed. Clear signposting and organization are critical for me to track your points effectively.

3. Note-Taking and Flowing:
I keep a rigorous flow during the round, writing down key arguments, warrants, and impacts. I appreciate debaters who structure their speeches clearly and make it easy to follow their line-by-line refutation. Dropped arguments will be noted, so be thorough in addressing key points.

4. Argument vs. Style:
I value argument over style, but a balance of both is always appreciated. Logical, evidence-based arguments carry the most weight, but a professional and persuasive delivery can enhance your position. I am less persuaded by overly aggressive or dismissive styles, as they can detract from the substance of your arguments.

5. Assessment Criteria:
When evaluating a debate, I focus on:

• Framework: Is there a clear framework that grounds the debate?
• Clash: Are debaters directly engaging with their opponent’s arguments?
• Evidence and Analysis: Are claims supported with solid evidence and logical reasoning?
• Impact Calculus: How well do debaters weigh their impacts against their opponent’s?
• Clarity and Structure: Are arguments presented in an organized and coherent manner?

6. Persuasive Arguments in Past Rounds:
The most persuasive arguments are those that are well-reasoned, strongly warranted, and tied back to clear impacts. I appreciate debaters who effectively engage in impact calculus and weigh their arguments against their opponent's. Strong rebuttals and strategic concessions also stand out as hallmarks of effective debating.

7. Expectations for In-Round Conduct:
Debaters should maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout the round. Personal attacks, rudeness, or dismissiveness have no place in debate and may affect my perception of your credibility. I expect debaters to focus on the arguments and engage constructively with one another. If you believe I missed something or need clarification, politely bring it up during the round or in your final speeches.

I appreciate debates that center on meaningful clash and emphasize impact calculus. Always tie your arguments back to the resolution and assume I am a blank slate who needs to be fully convinced of your position. Clear communication and strategic decision-making will go a long way in ensuring your arguments are effectively evaluated.