Gordie O'Rorke (he/him)
 --- Call me Gordie (gore-dee), not judge, not sir
 University of Texas '26 -- not debating
 Winston Churchill '22 -- policy debate
 

 --- winstonchurchillko@gmail.com for email chains
 --- gordieororke03@gmail.com for anything else
 

 TLDR: I have no familiarity with the NATO topic. Please explain acronyms, intricacies, etc. clearly if you want my ballot. I am willing to listen to any arguments that aren't racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. Some arguments will obviously need more explanation than others. Write my ballot for me--the first part of your 2NR/2AR should be what I repeat back to you in the RFD. Yes spreading, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed--I don't care how good your arguments are if I can't understand them.
 Very much tech>truth. However, you need to extend an argument completely if you want me to evaluate it, even if it is dropped.
 

 Other Relevent Things:
 Please no small talk if I don't know you.
 Speed up the debate. Have the email chain ready to go when the round is supposed to start. I don't want to sit there and watch you slowly get ready for your speech.
 Speech drop = :(
 If you send a google doc or pdf, I will take off .2 speaks and be very annoyed. (download verbatim, it's free)
 Give an order before your speech. Example: "CP, DA, Case" not "Link, Line by Line, Impact"
 

 Topicality: Competing interpretations is probably a better metric in determining T debates however I can be persuaded otherwise. Reasonability is a question of the counterinterpretation and the literature base. Please articulate an internal link/impact -- "they explode limits and ground" is not an argument.
 

 Counterplans: It's counterplan, not "see-pee". I generally don't like counterplans like "Add a 4th Branch" or "Reverse Guidance Docs": ie. counterplans that adds something arbitrarily. I won't default to judge kick or sufficiency framing unless you tell me to. Counterplan theory is probably underutilized in the 2AR but it needs to be a substantial part if not all of the 2AR. You need a net benefit or you will probably not get my ballot. Aff specific advantage counterplans are always better.
 

 Disads: It's disad, not "dee-aye". I like well thought out disads. Zero risk is possible if debated well. Disads are generally bad and generic--please point out the logical flaws--this will go a long way even as analytics. Aff specific links are always better than generic ones but I understand disad ground is not always extensive. Turns case arguments are very persuasive and should be at the top of your 2NR.
 

 Kritiks: Slow down on overviews. These were a majority of my 2NRs my senior year and a majority of my partner's 2NRs my junior year. I am familiar with common kritiks like cap, antiblackness, set col, IR, but have almost no experience with high theory which means you'll likely need to overexplain. I default to weighing the aff. Links should also be articulated as reasons to turn the case. Often times the alt debate gets lost which I think is a detriment. Explaining the alt makes it a lot easier to get my ballot. Thus, I also find it difficult to vote for the K without an alternative.
 

 K Affs: I like K Affs as long as they have a link to the topic. Taglines that say NATO, AI, Cybersecurity, with vague or no basis in their literature is not a link to the topic. I find it hard in those scenarios to believe that it is necessary to read this on the aff. I find TVAs and Switch-Side very persuasive therefore the aff needs to have a strong response and justification for their aff and model of debate. While I did mostly go for the K v K Affs, I find these rounds hard to adjudicate and will need more judge instruction if you want a helpful ballot.
 

 Framework: I probably lean more towards voting for framework in K Aff v FW debates. Arguments about dismissing K Affs from debate, excluding literature bases, etc will likely result in a loss--these aren't persuasive. TVA/SSD is a good strategy and I find that Aff teams rarely have a good answer to strategic TVAs or a strong justification for why it's necessary to read their literature on the affirmative. Structure your debating around why your model is preferable, not whining about "cheating K-Affs".
 

 Theory: Underutlized. I also have very little experience in these types of debates but good debating, and articulating clear in-round abuse, internal links, and impacts might make it a reason to reject an argument. Condo is the only reason to reject the team. Reading your 10 point theory blocks at each other without responding to the other teams 10 point theory block will lead to low speaker points.
 

 LD/PF: I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of these events. I will probably judge these rounds like I would a policy round. This means backfile theory shells, RVIs, gotchya arguments, etc. will not be understood and likely not voted on. I don't know what "tricks" are and I don't care to learn. Please still send your evidence. I'm not sure why other events don't always have an email chain but disclosure is good. If you are unsure how to do this, please ask. Not sending evidence will result in lower speaker points.