Background:
Debated for Appleton East (Policy - V4) 1991-1996
Education: MBA and JD
Work: Consulting with start up companies

I bring a more policy focused approach to the round, looking to be persuaded which the best option is. Making the round entertaining for me (in a good way, not a horror story way) is a great way to increase speaker points-- being engaging to your audience is an important communication skill.
I place value on both quality arguments and persuasive communication. A stronger argument (logical and supported by reasoning or evidence) will always be valued more, but persuasion and strong speaking/advocacy skills will be the tie breaker if the arguments seem roughly equal and the debaters have not given analysis as to why I should prefer one over the other. I understand jargon and technical/policy terminology but prefer it is kept to a minimum. If you are going faster be sure that you are VERY clear so that your arguments as you intend them end up on my flow, otherwise I may be voting off of only what I heard and wrote down and not what you hoped I would hear.