I feel corny posting this but I'll give a short paradigm of how I vote:
I am tabula rasa. I debated on the nat circuit a bit in high school and will vote on literally anything. I believe that in debate, anything spoken in the round is true unless refuted. I will always vote on tech over truth. I will entertain anything from your basic policymaker risk analysis, to theory, to critical arguments. When I was in high school, I always went for the Security K in nat circuit and flow rounds, but I would always read a couple disads, a competitive policy, T/theory, and case arguments in the 1NC. With that said, I usually err neg on theory on things like Condo good as I believe the negative has the right to test out the affirmative in multiple worlds.
Aside from the actual substance of the debate round, I give speaker points based on the ability to allocate time well, speak clearly, phrase arguments concisely, and effectively use their cross-ex with purpose. I will give a 30/30 a lot easier than people may think. I prefer rounds that do include speed because normal speak goes far too slow for me and honestly, it bores me. That doesn't mean I'll vote for a team that reads as many shitty arguments as possible, it means every word you speak has a purpose or apart of a strategy you could see yourself going for in the 2NR. This especially means that I must be able to understand what you say. Please me nice and respectful to your opponents in rounds too, I always believed professionalism was something that lacked from a lot of nat circuit and college debaters.
**I don't know much about this topic at all, but I should be able to follow any argument. As far as the affirmative goes, in high school I usually read policy affs that had huge advantages like hegemony. I would often read 20 cards on just the heg advantage alone and would almost always go for it in the 2AR. But I also love critical affs, and honestly prefer topical critical affs, but again, I am tabula rasa so I will listen to non topical critical aff. I like Securitization arguments the best, but like I said, I have no idea what the topic is about and what critical arguments are popular. Authors like Dillon were my favorite. I used to be a Capitalism critique fanatic, but I think Zizek is a bit silly now .
Anyways, Marquette is a AWESOME tournament, it always has been, and in my opinion is the best tournament in Missouri. I wish more schools would travel, where in the past Kansas teams would come and the old Pembroke teams would dominate us! Hahaa! Winning the tournament and top speaker my junior year was an amazing moment of my high school years and regret not being able to debate my senior year and thus missing another great tournament. Enjoy and good luck all!
~PWest for life