I'm okay with whatever arguments you want to run so long as you do clear warranted analysis, argument comparison, and evidence comparison. A couple of key considerations are:

I have a higher threshold for theory if you don't collapse to it.

Kritiks need to explain what the alternative does.

I'll default to topicality/theory being apriori, so if you want me to evaluate something else first you need to make the arguments.

You can't win just because your advocacy could also solve the issue if you haven't linked them to offense.

I'm good with speed, though there's two reservations. First, I often flow electronically now so I need a bit extra time between page transitions. Second, if your opponents ask you to slow I expect you to slow. If you need someone to slow, you should say slow and not clear, clarity I expect them to bite their pallet while still going quick.

In general - I like good arguments, I don't like bad arguments. Pleasemake good arguments and be a good human being while you do it.