I debated for three years in high school, including at state and districts. I am fine with almost any argument (stock issues, advantage/disadvantage, counterplans, Ks), but you must explain why I should vote on a specific issue. If I do not have a specific reason to vote, then I will be forced to default to policymaker, where I vote for whichever policy (plan, CP, Squo, K) has the best DAs/advantages. I judged a fair amount (4 or 5 tournaments) during the arms sales topic, but do not have much experience with the 2020-2021 topic, so do not expect me to know the relevant case info by default.
Errs: If the counterplan and the plan solve the case identically and neither have a net benefit, I will prefer the plan over the counterplan unless given some reason to do otherwise.
Err: If the plan and the status quo solve equally (i.e., the aff loses completely on solvency/harms/advantages), I will vote for the status quo.
I am fine with generic links, unless the aff can explain why the link is flawed.
I will generally not buy 'rule of the game' arguments.
I will generally weigh topicality and theory arguments over case, but if the neg runs T in the 2NR, it is highly recommended that they go all in.
I don't care one way or the other on condo.
Ks are fine, but I am more experienced with the generic Ks like cap compared to case-specific Ks.
Spreading is fine.
I will not consider new in the 2 to be problematic by default, but I will consider it to be a voting issue if the aff makes it an important issue.
If you have any specific questions, just ask before the round.