I debated LD for four years in high school. I've spent plenty of time on the national circuit and am probably familiar with most circuit-style LD practices. Although I have extensive debate experience, this is my first year as a judge, so I'm not entirely certain what my judging preferences are.

Speed: I'm hesitant to say you can go as fast as you want, but you can go pretty fast. Just be clear and sign post. If you sign post well and don't mumble throughout your speeches, there's a slim chance you'll lose me.

Arguments: I will listen to whatever you want to run. However, whether or not I'll make a competent decision based on those arguments depends entirely on how well you explain how they function in the round.

DA's: Fine so long as you make it clear how the DA impacts whatever standards are presented in the round.

Theory: I am familiar with theory but not highly experienced with it. As far as I have seen, all theory shells argue that the opponent abuse the debater in some way, and ought to either lose the argument or lose the round because of it. I understand that theory comes before the case debate, etc... However, I'd advise you to read theory slowly. If you read the short concise arguments allowed by theory at the same speed you read your case, you will almost certainly lose me. Also, I only like to vote on theory when I'm truly convinced there is abuse. If someone presents a theory shell that strikes me as a time-suck strategy, I will do whatever I can not to vote for it.

Kritik: I'm not very familiar with kritiks at all. If you really want to run one, then I'd suggest avoiding almost all the jargon, and explaining very clearly how the kritik impacts the round. Essentially, I don't have any bias against it, but it's a pretty risky move because I'm probably going to mishandle it.

Value/Criterion: You do not need to win (or even have) your value or criterion simply for the sake of doing so. For instance, if you're winning your opponents value and decide to drop your own (given that there are no turns on your case) that is absolutely fine. If you have a burden statement rather than a conventional criterion, that's also fine. Just give me a clear path to victory, and explain why your opponent lacks that path (or why I should prefer your path, etc...) and I'll vote for you. The more clearly stated this path is, especially in your final rebuttal, the more likely it is that I will assess the arguments you want me to assess and vote the way you want me to vote.