TL;DR: I'll evaluate any argument you make as long as it isn't actively discriminatory (racism good, etc.) but also I'm bad at evaluating some stuff I talk about later.
 Read this if you're at CatNat quals: I'm going to evaluate off the flow, starting with framing. Whoever wins framing, that's the method I use to evaluate offense. If your offense doesn't link under the winning framework, it doesn't matter. If you're a circuit debater hitting a trad debater, I'll judge the round as if it were a traditional round. The major implication of this is that you won't win on the "read an apriori to get william's ballot then spend the rest of my speech on substance" strat. You can stop reading this paradigm here but if you want to hear my circuit paradigm (if you plan on having a circuit round or you're just curious about my interesting and objectively correct debate opinions) go ahead.
 Read this if you're a novice: The rest of this paradigm doesn't really matter for you. I will evaluate the round based on the winning framework, I don't care about the truth of an argument if it's won, feel free to ask me any questions, I'm here to help!
 Quick note: I haven't thought about debate or heard spreading in about a year, so if you're a super technical/fast debater, I may not be the judge for you.
 Hi, I'm William, a current Sophomore at Columbia University. I debated LD for 4 years, mostly national circuit tournaments. wrf2107@columbia.edu for chains
 LD paradigm:
 Very Important: Send anything prewritten you have in a doc when you read it. Prewritten overviews, blocks, etc. This is important for accessibility.
 I'm going to evaluate off the flow, starting with framing. Whoever wins framing, that's the method I use to evaluate offense. If your offense doesn't link under the winning framework, it doesn't matter.
 I don't really care what you read as long as you can explain it to me. I'm more comfortable evaluating phil and tricks stuff, then larp, then dense ks/performance. I'll evaluate whatever you read, I'm probably just better at some things. This is especially important for performance, I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability, but I've never understood fully how to implicate it in round. Read what you think will win you the round, but know that I go in with prior knowledge.
 some defaults (only if there's no argument about them, once a debater makes a claim about any of these, the default doesn't matter):
 no rvis, no judge kick, yes 1ar theory, competing interps, drop the debater, epistemic confidence, presume neg, T=theory>K>substance, comp worlds, theory as norm setting.
 If I forgot anything, ask me and I'll tell you what I default to.
 Random notes that might be useful
 1. Non T affs: I'm happy to vote on a non t aff if you win it on the flow, but I tend to lean more to the side of T in these debates, so you're fighting an uphill battle. (not that you can't or shouldn't read them, just know that I have tended to fall on the side of TFW in the past).
 2. I have a relatively high bar for 2ar/2nr explanations for phil/k theories, don't blip past a million buzzwords, tell me why your view of the world/ethics/power/etc. is true, then why I care in the context of the res (or not the res depending on the round, you know what I mean)
 3. Theory: Theory is only frivolous if you can prove it is. I may think shoes theory is a bad argument, but if its won its won (but I will be sad if you read shoes theory in front of me and you'll get a 26)
 4. I don't flow CX but I listen to it. This means I will hold you to your CX explanations or lack thereof, but things said in CX aren't arguments.
 5. Topic lit: I have read exactly 0 topic lit, don't expect me to know what you're talking about if you don't tell me
 6. The ROB is to vote for the better debater: If you read this, I will have no clue how to evaluate the round. The point of a ROB is to tell me what it means to be a better debater, pls don't just say "whoever's better"
 7. I won't vote on "evaluate [x thing] after [current speech]". If you read evaluate theory after the 1ar in the 1ar, i won't vote on it, if you read it in the ac then read 1ar theory, I'll vote on it and be sad. That being said, I have a super low threshold for answering these arguments because they're explicitly designed to not have debate and punish someone for missing one blip.
 8. Some disclosure bad args are probably underutilized and have the potential to win the disclosure debate. Interpret this how you want to lol. (Note for after rereading this: This doesn't mean don't read disclosure. If you think its strategic, go for it. I will happily vote on it if you win.)
 9. Please consider the implications of your skepticism claims. If all truth claims are undecidable, your presumption and permissibility claims are too. I obviously won't make this implication in round for you, but I am sad when this isn't brought up.
 Positions I loved as a debater: Ilaw, Agamben NIB, theory is incoherent,
 PF paradigm:
 I'm an LD debater, so if there are any PF specific rules/norms I probably won't know them (I know basic stuff like no new args in FF and stuff like that). I care a lot more abt the warranting you give than the specifics of the evidence/ethos-y stuff. If you can't explain your card's warrant I don't really care that it's by some famous economist. I evaluate off the flow, tell me which arguments I should vote on and why they're the most important. Also I know PF is starting to have some K/theory stuff, if both debaters are down I'd be happy to judge that round, but if one side doesn't want to, just read normal PF stuff.