My background in debate is that I was a Policy debater in the Chicago Debate League for four years in high school and I debated on the College LD circuit for one year.
 I was a K-heavy debater. This doesn't mean you will be automatically advantaged by reading a Kritik. They are the area of debate I am most knowledgeable of, and thus it's most clear if you're butchering the source material. However, I cannot deny that they are the arguments in debate I find most persuasive, as they are the arguments that persuaded me when I was a debater.
 I focused on Cap K, Security K, Social Ecology K, and Delueze and Guatarri Ks.
 I'll list my thoughts on each stock arguments.
 My general paradigm:
 I will do my best to be a clean-slate judge, but I'm only human.
 I have a high threshold for when I consider an argument valid. It is not enough to simply state a point, but you must also justify it.
 If your strategy is to throw out more arguments than the opponent can respond to this will both not work for me and earn yourself poor speaker points. That practice is exclusionary, poor rhetoric, intellectually lazy, and quite frankly boring.
 Make an effort to clash with your opponents to earn high speaks.
 Aff:
 Inherency, Harms, and Solvency are stock issues. You must defend them.
 I'm okay with Kritical Affs, I ran a few of them. However, they must be related to the Topic and be a high enough quality argument to justify the educational impacts of significantly breaking the rules.
 Neg:
 Prepare on-case arguments. It's just better debate practice. Impact turns are dope.
 DA:
 Debate, in general, has a horrible habit of having absolutely nonsense DAs that win rounds. So many of them are truly ridiculous and are historically and empirically proven nonsensical fearmongering.
 That said, it's the affirmative's responsibility to convince me in round that an impact is highly unlikely.
 I've always found the Impact and internal Link chains to be the most suspect part of a DA in most cases. No, I don't think a modestly higher federal deficit will cause Great Power War with CHINA.
 CP:
 Perm is a test of competitiveness, not an advocacy.
 I consider PIC's highly abusive, lazy, and boring. If you want to run a PIC criticizing problematic language they or their authors used, you should run a critique or run a separate off-case.
 Debaters used to argue CPs themselves are abusive and unjustified. The debate community has largely resolved this question in favor of CPs, but I think the community should revisit it. There are some very interesting arguments to be made and I will boost your speaker points for running this.
 T:
 The least interesting debate to be had, and I'll be more than a little salty if I have to vote on it.
 That said, if an AFF is GENUINELY UNTOPICAL I have no problem hearing T out and voting on it.
 I generally dislike the accepted strategy that you should always run T just to waste the AFF's time, and your speaker points will reflect that.
 K:
 I find Ks the most interesting part of debate, and I would love to see good K debate and I will be personally biased towards high speaks in these rounds.
 That said, there is absolutely nothing worse in debate than bad K debate. I would rather listen to a 1nc of T and oncase.
 Your alt matters. Too many critical teams, especially ones I've faced have some of the laziest excuses for alts. It must solve the impacts, or the impacts should not be weighed.
 Perm is a test of competitiveness not an advocacy.
 Read the literature. If you don't, it shows. If you want to be a good K debater, you must ABSOLUTELY READ THE LITERATURE. You will get so much more out of the experience.