Enjia Wang (Eddie)
 add me to the email chain: enjia.wang@utexas.edu
 ----
 Pref me policy > clash > kvk
 DA
 Bread and butter of policy rounds. If the 2nr is all in on a disad, the team that weighs better wins.
 Disads are the most convincing when they have a clear brink and specific links. Telling me how close the squo is to a crisis can do a lot to make up for a weaker explanation for your link. 
 On aff, thumpers and link turns are the most convincing for me. The more specific to neg's specific story, the better.
 Love 1ar impact turns in response to add-ons in the neg block.
 CP
 Will vote on process cps, but it's gonna be harder for me to buy perennial ones like con con or consult.
 It's way too easy for 2ncs to swamp the 1ar, so hold the line on theory and use it as deterrence for the 2nr. That being said, I won't vote on theory unless the cp in question was in the 2nr strat.
 pics are a great way to punish a poorly written plan.
 Don't read cards for your cardless adv cp in the 2nc.
 cp theory:
 lean aff on--
 private sector fiat, international fiat, process/consult
 lean neg on--
 process cps, condo, states fiat
 T
 T is a really strong argument, so don't be afraid to collapse on it in the 2nr. Sometimes I think neg goes for a weaker strat becaues they think that the aff is "fair enough," when T is still the strongest arg they have.
 I'll default to competing interps--both sides should defend their idea of how the topic should be divided. Tell me a story for why I should prefer your interp.
 Give examples of 1acs that wouldn't be topical and why it's a good (or bad) thing that they aren't. Give estimates for how wide aff ground really is, why it's a good (or bad) thing that it's that size.
 Evidence quality is the golden standard when comparing definitions. The closer to the context of the topic area, the better.
 Case
 Most affs are a really bad idea anywhere outside of debate, so a solid neg response goes a long way to pushing a weak disad across the finish line. Just don't extend taglines without warrants.
 Neg Ks
 Having specific links and a clearly articulated theory of power is the best way to win me over. A solvent alt that identifies and resolves a root case behind the 1ac also helps a lot.
 Generic links or links to the squo are gonna be an uphill battle. No link arguments are way too easy to make.
 I'm reasonably familiar with setcol, cap, afropess, and some ks against empire. Anything else needs a longer overview.
 K Affs
 I won't be the best at judging these rounds, but that doesn't mean I lean neg.
 Aff fw args that are the most convincing for me are well-articulated counter interps of what debate should be, or disads and ks to neg fw.
 The tried and true cap + framework combo will go a long way versus affs that are totally removed from the resolutional mechanism, but more specific responses would be nice for 1acs that are reasonably predictable.
 Presumption is a pretty underrated neg strat. It's something I'll vote on if aff doesn't provide any warrants for why debate is key for their advocacy/their advocacy is good for the debate space.
 Also, don't assume I have a good understanding of the 1ac if it's something relatively niche. You're gonna have to spend some time explaining it if neg has a specific response that isn't cap + framework.
 PF
 Will try and evaluate it like a policy round. Thoughts from above still apply here.
 Ks are fair game, but imo the format makes it impossible to run any of them well.
 LD
 Please no phil or tricks.
 Again, the closer to policy the better.