I usually describe my paradigm as Policy bounded by Jurisdictionals. I've also adopted the 'I and the President' philosophy of a fellow coach. I've shamelessly plagiarized his post here in a few places...

Look up the strict definition of policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they pretended they were the president. The round should be argued under that framework; I am the president. You have been called to argue a policy topic, i.e. the resolution, in front of the president. The agenda for the meeting is the resolution and clarifying that agenda is interesting and compelling to me since I have little time to talk about what isn't germane to the topic at hand (i.e. Topicality is cool), but I don't like taking about about things I cant change anyway (the rules of debate, fiat of actors I cant control, etc.) which is essentially the jurisdictional aspect of my philosophy. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them.

Speed - Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you normally would in front of the president. I'll bend that much, but I will fire you if you don't slow down for the tags, you spread thru the line-by-line so no one can flow it, or if your delivery style is more akin to vomiting or having an asthma attack than persuading me to vote for you. Remember, I don't get the flash drive!

This president likes structured arguments. If your 1AC isn't sub-pointed, (and for those that cant figure that out - looks like an outline) you don't stand a chance and will be fired. If you barf a bunch standards or blip responses with no analysis and don't give a decent amount of time for me to write them down, you might be fired. Depth, not breadth, is going to sway my decision. You respect the office or you don't get an audience with the president.

DAs and advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed as a nutcase and then given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for both sides. Concentrate on providing quality internal link stories where the cards actually link to the impact. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy.

CPs - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own aff plan.

K - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizarre solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, the secret service will be asked to not-so-gently escort you from the room. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider. Weigh the round at the end and tell me a good story why I should listen to you. Don't be rude and don't be lazy. This president has much experience in this office, from high school, college and coaching, but he is fairly conservative. Fight with your actions the idea that debate has strayed from an educational activity with a focus on good quality argumentation, to a battle of who can quote the craziest 'philosopher' and a style which relies on technology, spreading and blip responses.