TL/DR:
 Preferred pronouns: he/him
 I debated for Garland High School for four years in LD. I routinely competed on the national circuit and broke at multiple bid tournaments over the years. I now attend the University of Texas at Dallas ( Class of 23') for Finance.
 Speed: feel free to spread in front of me, I can probably handle your top speed but I will say clear should the need arise.
 Disclosure: please disclose and throw me on the email chain @ goldentomahawk20@gmail.com
 LARP: go for it and go all out this is what I know extremely well
 K's: don't be afraid to go one off k just make sure you can explain the thesis really well because I had some limited experience. Check the in depth section below for more information on my experience.
 T and theory: I'm all fine on this layer but just please don't spread analytics at full speed because that will make me sad. I have a low threshold for frivolous theory so just keep that in mind but aside from that I don't have an opinion on most shells.
 Phil: Do not assume I know your Phil NC at all. Practically no experience during my career but go for it if you think it's strategic.
 Skep/ Presumption/Tricks debate: I wouldn't advise going for this in front of me because I of my lack of experience with this debate and my personal dislike for it.
 I'll allow you to run any argument you want in the round as long as it doesn't promote racism, sexism, ableism, etc.
 In depth- section:
 LARP: This is what I consider myself to be the best at.
 everything else: just ask me specific questions you have before the round that you have
 February 2020:
 After some months back on the circuit, I've had some other realizations about my paradigm. Please don't go for skep in front of me, I have an extremely low threshold for it and am unlikely to vote for it/ evaluate it the way you want me to. When it comes to high level, multi-layered t/theory debate, please flash analytics that you're reading because that makes my life way easier and also make sure to do some weighing between the layers that allows me to decide which layer to adjudicate first.
 January 2021:
 Haven't judged on the circuit since TFA state so wouldn't recommend blasting full speed right out the gate. Aside from that the rest of the paradigm is the same.
 October 2022: If you're gonna blitz through analytics, do us both the favor and send them to me. I know you're not spreading analytics off the dome at top speed for complex layer analysis. Don't force me to resolve 5+ layers of debate without implicating them and telling me how to vote in the 2nr or the 2ar. Also, I have a high threshold for condo bad especially if it's one condo advocacy.
 

 February 2023:
 After so many years of judging and hearing the same non-t affs over and over again. I would highly advise against reading very buzzword-centric non-topical affs that frankly aren't interesting to listen to. I much prefer listening to interesting new policy affs that have some sort of basis for new engagement and contestation. If you do choose to read it, I will err heavily towards t- framework and similar style arguments unless thoroughly and well beat back. If you absolutely must read it, then make sure to really explain every point of the thesis in detail during cross or your rebuttals or extensions. I'm much more likely to vote for it if If fundamentally understand why it's SO IMPORTANT that you cannot affirm the resolution.