Email chain: jbellemere314@gmail.com
 She/her.
 My background: I debated for Lawrence Free State for three years, but did not debate in college. I'm currently an assistant coach at Free State.
 General preferences
 Read whatever arguments you're comfortable with, I care more that you know what you're talking about than that you're reading an argument I personally like. There are only two exceptions to this rule:
 

 I don't particularly want to listen to arguments about death or suffering being good. If you read those arguments I'll attempt to judge them--but I'll also be pretty stressed and annoyed at you, so don't be surprised if I'm not able to evaluate the debate very well.
 Bigotry of any kind--racism, transphobia, ableism, etc.--isn't OK, for reasons that I hope are obvious.
 

 Speed is fine, but make sure to enunciate on tags. Most of my debate experience was in fast rounds, but it's been a while since I've had to flow those rounds, so maybe consider starting out at like 90% speed.
 I don't have a preference for policy vs. the K/reject the res affs/whatever other "controversial" arguments people talk about. Other than the two exceptions listed above, I don't really care that much what you read.
 The 2NR/2AR should tell me the reason/reasons that I should vote for you. Line-by-line is important, but you need to be able to explain which arguments matter and why. The winner of the debate is the team that convinces me their advocacy is better, not the one who showed off more raw technical skill.
 A corollary to that is that comparative impact calculus isn't only for disad/case debates. It's just as important to tell me why your impacts to T outweigh theirs, or why the solvency deficit to the counterplan outweighs the net benefit, for example.
 An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. That means you tell me what is true, why it's true,and why that matters.
 tl;dr read whatever you want, however you want. Convince me your advocacy is better than your opponents' and I'll vote for you. Winning an argument isn't enough, you need to explain why that argument matters more than the ones you're losing.
 These things aren't as important, but could end up affecting how I evaluate the round:
 T
 Topicality is underrated. Don't just read blocks, take the time to explain your internal links and tell me why your vision of debate is preferable to theirs. I think fairness is probably an internal link and I tend to lean towards competing interps as a framing question, but I can be convinced otherwise on either of those questions.
 Disads
 Take the time to contextualize the link evidence to the aff. Even if you're reading generic evidence, you should still do the work to explain why it's relevant in this specific situation.
 Comparative impact calculus is a huge help to me at the end of the round. The team who does more of it will probably have an easier time winning my ballot.
 Counterplans
 This is the argument I went for the least when I debated. I'm pretty much 50-50 on the question of whether PICs and sketchy process counterplans are cheating. I'll vote on theory args, but I'm not predisposed to do so.
 Competition debates where each side reads a million definitions of the word "it" and doesn't impact them out are annoying and I never really got the point to them. Impact out severance and intrinsicness (?) args, and tell me what the world of the perm looks like. It's a test of competition, not an advocacy.
 The K
 I went for Cap a lot in high school, I read a fair bit of theory/K lit stuff in college. I'll probably understand the claims of your K at a top level, but I won't know the details. I'll know if you're just using buzzwords without understanding what they mean.
 Other stuff:
 The debate isn't over until I sign the ballot, and until that happens there's time to make a comeback. Don't underestimate the value of being creative and flexible.
 I really don't want to tell you to clear. Please don't make me do that.
 Signposting, both before a speech and during the line-by-line, is invaluable and will make my job flowing the debate dramatically easier. I'll be annoyed if you don't do it.
 If you tell me "it's sent" and I open your email and it contains a PDF attachment, I might cry.
 I'll try to follow whatever the norm is for speaker points at a given tournament. In general, expect between 28 and 29 points, with 28.5 being average for the division that you're in. Above a 29 mean I think you have a good chance of doing well in elims.