last updated: 6/2
 conflicts: Austin Peace Academy | Alief Hastings MM, Alief Hastings OB, Barrington AC, Clear Lake MK, Jordan KV, Jordan VS, Heritage WT, Liberal Arts and Science Academy AB, Liberal Arts and Science Academy AR, Liberal Arts and Science Academy RX, Liberal Arts and Science Academy OX, Oak Ridge AA, Rock Hill DG, Sugarland SpiderSmart VS, William G. Enloe PD, William G. Enloe RN, Unionville AS
 institution: Texas '26
 paradigm:
 Due to the nature of reactionaries and violent people stalking judge paradigms, I will not be declaring anything personally identifying on this paradigm, nor going into greater details till paradigms on this platform aren't just openly public.
 The bottom line to every round is that it must be a safe space for students (or in other terms, minors/barely adults) and minority-identifying people to feel safe in. Within my jurisdiction, I can and will not vote up violent and hateful rhetoric. The words we say and the sentences we interpolate have ramifications to your being and to others. 
 Other than that, feel free to do whatever, with the only caveat being that I can submit my ballot before tournament officials start requesting me to decide faster.
 Debate is a communication activity. The activity doesn't carry rules, rather it has norms that most people agree on. I don't know them all, and that's the beauty of the activity.
 When I enter the round, my ballot only declares a decision and rates your individual performance. However, I am moldable to whatever judge you would like me to be. Ultimately, it is your responsibility as debaters to pick and choose your strategies in front of me. 
 That being said, I am more than willing to struggle through thinking out hard decisions and giving long RFDs.
 I will vote up anything, requiring a claim, data, warrant, and impact. 
 Data is tenable to critique and can be optional at times, but the other three are required for me to vote up anything. Data doesn't trump all, but given two equal positions, better argumentation/testing can be found with data that has clear and concise warrants. Data can be skewed, misrepresented, or have illogical bases. It is your job as a debater to make it clear why the methodology/epistemology of their data is bad.
 AT anti-intellectualism - If you can't refute a claim like "the law says its illegal, and the law is absolute" or strings of other argumentation within the "conservative playbook" (see: 5G radiowaves causing cancer), then maybe you should lose. I can vote up anti-intellectual arguments if you don't have any specific offense and will dock points off severely if that is the conclusion to your round.
 AT what is violent? - There is a brightline to something said/read as violent and asserting something is violent. The latter should be a debate (i.e the United States is an institution that continues to perpetuate genocide to indigenous people), the former is grounds to stop the debate (i.e directly saying in round a statement such as "I wish all indians stopped complaining over their land, it's our land now") - each scenario is tenable and the severity of what is said is determined case-by-case.
 AT what "K" authors have you read? - This is pretty arbitrary since this implies whoever has read the author you will read can get away with forming an explanation based on the interpretation of the round. I feel (mostly) fine to evaluate within the humanism, dialectical, and post-humanism/modernism/structuralism library. Regardless, focus on contextualization and examples and away from the direct translation of your readings. Your author will have specific takes on various terminology and functions of your library of thought, such as a concept like affect being good or bad, etc -- being clear and having a good understanding of these interactions will excel you far in these debates.
 AT equally weighted positions - these debates become exceedingly frustrating because it means good debate is happening within 2nd/3rd level forms of testing, but implications to weigh your position was not fleshed out. I think about each position from the conclusions your weighing/framing may lead to and begin to "infuse" that form of thinking into how I approach the decision. However, If I find that your framing is incoherent in how I am suppose to weigh, then intervention is inevitable (though I suppose it always was anyways).
 AT speed - go for it, just delineate between what you want me to flow, and what you don't want me to flow.
 AT what are your speaker points like? - In the past, they were highly inflated due to the nature of LD. However, in broader retrospect I don't think it is my place to stop you from advancing onto elims if all you need is +.1 higher average than the other seed. I'll give speaker points to whatever the vibe is and nothing below the norm, for the most part. I like creativity, passion, pettiness, and embodiment, so have fun and make it entertaining.
 AT how do you decide debates? - I start from the 2NR and 2AR. Arguably, these are the most important and will be the basis of my decision from what is said. However, I think that good 2NRs and 2ARs implicate a lot of work from previous speeches to engage in deeper testing and/or give credence to a claim in the 2NR/AR. I also need explanations that will stick to my brain as I begin deciding. As I sift through, I start from layers that frame or are above content (see: T, theory, substance framing), and then work my way down to make an understanding of evaluation. My RFDs will often repeat back specific lines and things I flowed down in how this built understanding to my decision.
 Ask me in round for my email.