February 2023 update:
 Please include me on the email chain: tmounarath@gmail.com
 

 I haven't debated since March 2018, and I'm not very familiar with this topic at all. I'm no stranger to policy debate, just know I don't know acronyms.
 Best tip I can give you for my ballot is to explain your arguments to me like I am 5, I'm not as fast as I use to be. The more clear you are, the better I'll understand your argument and the more likely I may vote for you. A lot of times I miss things on the flow because I'm just not catching up to the first couple speech docs until at least around the 1NR. So just realize what's more important! Finishing your card or making sure I even caught it in the first place?P.S. I like jokes.
 Identity:
 I am a 2nd generation Laotian American male with ADHD, my parents are refugee's from the Vietnam war. Former policy debater for Weber State 2016-2018, I grew up in a middle class home around Salt Lake City, Utah and I love a good joke. (Seriously, extra speaker points opportunity here folks).I currently study aerospace engineering at Cal Poly Pomona, so I love space related stuff. I also participate in street dance in my spare time.
 Experience:
 High school: 2 years. Started with PF, went to the WSDI 2015 (Lab leaders: MIke Bausch, Jazmine Pickens, and Sam Allen). After my first year debating, started doing open Policy my senior year @Copper Hills High School under Scott Odekirk. I mostly ran straight up arguments, played around with Marx and Bleiker near the latter half of the year.
 College: 2 years. I did decent in open, only ever making it to quarter finals at CSUN my freshman year. Won finals in JV a couple times. My mentors were: Ryan Wash, Omar Guevara , Ryan Cheek, and Liz Dela Cruz.Mostly did Marx, disability, and model minority k debate.
 Procedurals:
 I'm fine with speed, but my ADHD does make it a bit harder for me to catch phrases. So if your spreading is really high pitch and quiet, my best advice is to speak up and slow down maybe 5% every time I say "clear"
 Flex prep is fine. Prep ends once you finish sending your speech docs.Talking to your partner and reorganizing documents count as prep.
 Argument preference:
 I love a good straight up policy debate. That was my strong suit in high school. So straight up debate is fine.
 I ran a lot of critical arguments in college like Marx, model minority, disability, etc. So K debate is fine for me as well.However, the only K's I'm not the best for high theory ones. I don't know anything about Baudrillard, Berlant, Lacan, Nietzche, etc. At best, I only know surface level information about them. So unless you can argue your K and explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old, you might be better off going with a different strat.
 I know what it's like to have a bad judge and so my goal when it comes to giving an RFD is as as follows:
 - When it comes to dropped arguments, I default to the burden of rejoinder meaning dropped arguments are considered true. The only exception being that you have claimed why some dropped arguments won't matter in context to what you are already winning. HOWEVER I tend to be more of a truth over tech type of judge. So if there was a 30 second theory blip in the neg block the 1NR dropped, unless the violation is super obvious I probably won't buy it.
 

 - If the 1AR clearly dropped something, then it's up to the negative to protect the 2NR from any new arguments in the 2AR, otherwise I end up buying unfair arguments. (Unless they are outrageously new).
 - If both teams have consistently clashed on the same argument that sways my decision one way or the other, then I depend on my own knowledge of the argument as well as how nuanced each teams arguments were.
 - I'm not a very lazy judge, I like to give detailed reasons as to why I voted, which means that going for dropped framing arguments or ROB's doesn't always mean I'll default to that frame. Of course this is only a problem if you are only saying "Extend the ROB, they dropped it." If you are saying "Extend the ROB, vote for the team that ____ this is important because __" THEN you are in a much better place.
 -Impact calc! Who outweighs?
 -If the perm debate wasn't dropped, then did the aff give a good explanation of it? Or did the neg prove the links were big enough disads to it?
 - I like to say that I'm more of a Truth>Tech type of judge, but I've mostly judged low tier rounds so I've practically only ended up voting on dropped arguments. But in better rounds I do believe I tend to be more of a truth judge.
 I usually vote aff when:
 - It makes sense to me what the aff does
 - I buy the permutation
 - I buy the aff outweighs any negative offense
 - I don't buy the negative's link work
 - I don't buy that the CP/K solves the aff
 I usually vote neg when:
 - I buy the links AND that the impacts outweigh the aff
 - I buy the alt solves the K
 - I buy the alt solves the aff
 - I don't think the aff actually does anything
 - I buy the aff is untopical and should thus lose because they make debate/their own impacts worse.
 - I just simply buy that the aff is bad
 T/FW
 Fairness and Education are usually the terminal impacts for these arguments, make sure you're making good internal link scenarios as to why debates around the USFG and/or resolution are important in debate in context to fairness and education. Too many times have I seen teams get up and say "Kritiks are bad and so you should lose." when it's much more nuanced than that!
 ALSO! Make sure you make a TVA and try to prove any loss of ground, limits, etc.
 I'm not super techy, so how I usually end up voting on T/FW flows is if:
 -There was a good RTP on the interp
 -If I believe that there was a viable way for the aff to be topical that would still solve the aff
 OR
 -If the impacts to FW/T outweigh the aff enough to the point to where the aff doesn't need to be solved by the TVA (AKA who has better offense on the flow!)
 The AFF
 90% of my debate career, I was the 2A/1N, and in that time I've learned much about what it takes to get an AFF ballot.
 The 1AC can be anything, as long as it makes an argument. What I mean by this is that I'm okay with any argument you run. Hard policy affs, soft left policy affs, poems, no advocacy statement. As long as by the 2AC I know what the aff does or is trying to do, you should be fine.
 Impact calc and internal link scenarios are a must for me to understand as to why I'm giving an affirmative ballot.
 Counterplans/DA's
 I know it's obvious, but make sure it competes with the aff! That means if the aff is "Courts mandate sex-ed" then a courts CP wouldn't work!
 In order to win with this arg, you have to make sure you have strong net benefits and good answers to any permutations or solvency deficit arguments.
 As for the aff, you need to explain why the perm makes sense.
 DA's need a good solid link and a good explanation as to how the impact happens! I personally love the politics DA, it tends to be the most fresh and detailed DA and just makes for some really smart arguments that are fun to listen to!Some of my favorite rounds in high school always came down to impact calc when the 2NR went for a disad. I don't enough of that these days!Aff, it's always good to handle the link debate well. But ultimately, it always comes down to impact calc. Remember that!
 Kritiks
 *heads up! I know absolutely nothing about high theory arguments. So if you're going for Baudrillard, Berlant, etc, You need a very clear overview as to what exactly the bad thing the aff did in context to your theory and why that theory makes sense!
 The arguments I am most familiar of are: Ableism, Fem K's, Critical Race theory (Including: Antiblackness, Model Minority, Settler Colonialism, and Chicano Studies), Marxism, and Queer theory. However, my favorite argument to run as aff and neg were kritiks of debate itself including: The resolution, Burden of rejoinder, portable skills, etc.
 Make sure you have a good link to the aff! Too many times do I see Cap debaters read "Class before race" without any historical explanation of the aff.
 I strongly believe that any negative k can be articulated as a Disad to the aff if the alt debate ends up becoming a wash.
 Speaking of the alt debate, make sure you're explaining what it does and why the links or even how the alt works mean the permutation cannot solve.
 Impact calc is a must otherwise I don't know why the aff is bad!
 Theory:
 Condo debates are meh. Unless you make it interesting by putting a critical argument based spin on it like "White people shouldn't be allowed to be conditional as that's a form of fluid whiteness" or "Condo is good as fluid whiteness is inevitable and we should be prepared to handle it". That's just one example.
 I think perf con is totally viable to go for however. If a team reads a cap k with a econ da, call that out!
 When it comes to arguments like Aspec or Ospec, I tend to think they are a bit silly but if mishandled I'll vote on it.
 Extra speaks:My favorite kinds of rounds are ones where everyone is joking around. I like good jokes and puns, a lot of debates get boring really fast so they help me stay engaged with the round. But don't make fun of your opponents to the point it seems disrespectful. Examples of jokes I like:
 2AR Pirates aff vs. Framework:
 "They went for we steal ground, of course we steal. WE'RE PIRATES."
 2AC overview for an energy aff:
 "The plan is based off of policies proposed by FERC which means the plan is FERCalicious."