background 
HS parli/NPDA; won TOC/NPDI/Stanford, etc.
general things 
- I view debate through an offense/defense paradigm. Offense means this argument is a win condition for you. Defense means this is argument is not a win condition for them. If you want me to evaluate the round in a different way, I am open to those arguments.
- I believe every claim should be warranted in order for it to be the best version of that argument. This makes weighing easier - aka I see that something has a probability/magnitude/timeframe if there's an empiric or analytic to prove it. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate claims that are not warranted, but I have a paradigmatic preference for warranted claims over unwarranted claims.
- When you extend an argument, here are some useful things to do:
1. the tagline/warrant you want me to extend 2. a brief explanation of what it is 3. the implication of that argument.
- To me, an implication of an argument is how it functions within an offense/defense paradigm. For example, "we link turn the aff" is an offensive implication because it is a win condition for you. Conversely, saying "the aff has no solvency" has a defensive implication because it means their case is not a win condition for them. If you don't know the implication to an argument, force yourself to come up with one. It will make you better at debate and life but also debate doesn't matter so it's okay.
- In general, collapse to the most strategic arguments. This is why I emphasize treating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm because you can then isolate if an argument has a strategic function to leverage.
case 
- I'm most experienced with case debate, but that means its harder for me to remain 100% unbiased when judging. Still, I prefer good case debates.
- Warrant your links. Aka find places or case studies where your plan has worked before.
- Do not read disads where the status quo is bad.  I don't believe deficit spending DA is a convincing argument. Stop it. Squo should solve. Otherwise, its a linear disadvantage. Sharon Yuan once banned me from writing DAs because this is a hard concept so it's honestly okay.
- Read CPs that solve for the some/all of the aff. Do not read advantages to your counterplan. Read disads to the aff. Your job as the neg is to disprove the aff. You have not done that if you are passing a plan with its own advantages. Unfortunately, there's no clash.
- I default to functional competition > textual competition. This is because I believe perms are first and foremost a test of competition, not an advocacy. Functional is the substance level of the round. Textual refers to texts. 
- Only read uniqueness you can solve for. Aka you cannot solve for your global climate change uniqueness if your plan is only that San Francisco implements solar panels (think about why this is true).
theory 
- Interps describe the model of debate you defend for all rounds. It is not just about what happened in this round (unless its topicality). Your standards should justify your interp being a good model for debate, and not about what happened to YOU SPECIFICALLY. Along the same lines, you should not be answering the standards of a shell by saying "we did not do this," but rather why the logic of that standard is wrong/good/etc. This is something I also didn't understand until later, so I get if this is difficult to execute.
- I default to competing interps. Reasonability should be read with a brightline. If you say reasonability means I should gut check something, I take this to mean judge intervention based on what I personally think, but this is kinda lame because I personally hate intervention. Therefore, my gut check is to default to competing interps lmao, unless you make it very explicit that you don't want me judging based on the flow whatsoever.
- Please weigh between standards. Treat theory shells like you would case arguments. If both teams are trying to say they solve for war, each team still has to weigh their China/US and Russia/US internal link scenarios against each other. Similarly, if both teams say they solve for fairness, each team has to weigh their predictability and limits standards against each other.
kritiks 
- K vs K rounds tend to become pretty messy when neither team leverages their framework or offense, so I'll probably end up voting on presumption to limit intervention if I have no choice. Presumption is the idea that if there is a lack of offense in the round, I will vote for the status quo. As a result, I believe presumption defaults negative, unless the negative provides a counter advocacy. In this case, it flips affirmative (think about why this is true!)
- K's are hard, but here are some things you should do:1. frame out your opponents with an epistemic/ontological/semiotic skew claim 2. have warranted links that also function as case turns, and 3. find a way for your alternative/advocacy to solve parts of your opponents case.
- If you don't know what these mean, that's okay. All I'm looking for is offense that will win you the round. If there's a bunch of parallel claims being made with no broader explanation as to how I should evaluate the round, this is where my job becomes difficult. If you find yourself confused, we can talk about it later its nbd.