Background
 I did parli, policy, and congress in high school. Artem's cool, so I decided to come. 
 Pronouns - he/him/they/them. 
 Judging Preferences
 

 Please speak clearly at a conversational pace because I cannot understand spreading at this point. It's been too long and I wasn't particularly good at listening to it to begin with. 
 I believe that debates do not fulfill their educational potential if the arguments are not understood by both teams. Some people have ADHD or other conditions that make debate more difficult. Even if your opponent speaks at a conversational speed, do not feel embarrassed to ask your opponent to repeat elements of their argument; I will not hold it against you. 
 Do an off-time roadmap before every speech. During each speech, clearly mark which ads/disads you are talking about so that I can switch between flows. If you don't, I'll get lost on my flow and that's never good for you.
 You should proactively call Point of Orders that for new arguments made in the rebuttal. I will not strike new arguments in the rebuttal from consideration unless you do it for me. 
 Offense wins. Defense negates offense. The team with more offense at the end of the debate wins the round. 
 Kritiks are acceptable. However, it should either be obvious in the way it is explained how it is applicable to the case or why the case doesn't really matter at all. If the relevance of the K isn't clear to me, you will almost certainly lose. 
 If you run a counterplan, state its conditionality and how it's mutually exclusive. 
 Personally, I do not value topicality highly unless I'm convinced otherwise. The reason is that there are topics that I believe cannot be debated, such as supporting modern apartheid states. In other words, do not simply explain why the case untopical and assume that I'll care. Explain why on a greater level it is bad to run untopical cases in debate (e.g. pre-fiat impacts). 
 After the timer goes off, you can finish the last like two or three words of your sentence. That's it. Any more than that, I won't like it. 
 Take the time to explain your links. A lot of teams neglect this and it is frustrating when it is glanced over in favor of spending half your speech on how there will be a chain reaction toward nuclear hell without telling me how we get there. 
 Define your weighing mechanism. Do not assume that I'm a utilitarian or a deontologist. Please specify what I should value/weigh in your offense. If not, I'll just default to whatever I feel my personal preference is in the moment. 
 Absurd arguments are convincing to me until the other team refutes them. Do not assume that I'll personally strike it because it's absurd. I'll vote for an FDA initiative to harvest unicorn plasma any day of the week if nobody convinces me otherwise. 
 

 Formalities
 

 I'm down for handshakes. I'm also down for not shaking your hand. It's really your preference. I won't be offended either way. 
 "First I'd like to take the time to thank the judge"-- skip this please. Just make sure everyone is ready and start. 
 If both teams agree, I'll disclose the results at the end of the round. Feel free to ask me questions about whatever as long as time permits.