Policy Paradigm - quick 20 seconds before round are in bullets:

•Prep ends when you hit send on a document or remove the flash drive from your machine.
•Ideologically agnostic, read t, fw, cp, da, k, whatever. I coached and did a breadth and depth of k literature (that was cutting edge back in the day) and am now working with a team that goes 1 off heg. Do you, and your best debating, and I will work my hardest to adjudicate and respect the debate before me.
•Look for strong offense comparison for me to resolve the debate in your favor.
•Email: austin.brittenham@gmail.com


I'm increasingly becoming flow oriented - I'll adjudicated under any framework that a team wins. For this to happen, there must be a portion of the debate where you positively delineate your vision of how I ought adjudicate a round. That said, my default is really about my flow, focusing on the line by line rather than embedded clash will really help me adjudicate in a way which will favor you. I also find myself using my flow to be clear about what the debaters in the round were putting into words for me, rather than would I thought debaters meant by an argument. I flow your words and warrants, if you phrase things defensively, I will think of it defensively, etc.

Optimizing your chance to win - Frame your offense and compare it to the other teams, generally. I think that's the core of debate no matter how you think about arguments in debate. The 2nr ought centralize out offense, compare that offense to the 1ar offense. The 2ar should win some remaining offense and compare it to the neg offense.

History - I debated for 3 years in high school and 4 years in college. I went to the NDT my junior and senior years debating arguments about embodiment, transness, and queerness. That being said my high school debate experience was primarily flex debating. I have a strong respect for the cp/ptx da combo .I've now coached middle school, high school policy, and college NPDA Parliamentary debate and NDT/CEDA policy debate.

I think kritik alternatives should solve the links & impacts they identify. If the critique says capitalism causes environmental destruction, I need to know either how the 1ac/plan being capitalist produces environmental destruction, or how the alternative solves all of capitalism producing environmental destruction. A simple rejection of bad epistemology probably doesn't solve Britain being a capitalist state, but a global violent revolution might. Similarly, why is it that encountering a capitalist in a debate round is bad if that debater doesn't have their hands on levers of power? For me, I just need a coherency among all portions of a critique. To be clear, do a discourse, reps, epistemology, whatever argument, but make sure there is congruence among the 3 parts.

I think that "methods" debates don't necessarily mean that the affirmative doesn't get a permutation. Methods seem permutable to me. Asserting "it's a methods debate so perms" is certainly not an argument because it is a claim without a warrant. To be clear no perms bc methods is a winnable argument in front of me, but my predisposition is the other way and brisk debating on the theory will not end favorably.

Messy debates will often have me resolve in favor of the negative--the 2ar has the chance to clean up the debate but didn't.

Msc Theory - I think that critical affs should either normatively defend something that isn't the squo or have defense of why their speech act/performance generates offense that is unix to each debate round.

I think try-or-die is really vote aff on presumption which seems silly. Like either the aff wins their impacts or they don't, try-or-die seems like a concession that you've lost the impact defense.

I think (logically limited) conditionality is fine and am not generally inclined to vote on conditionality unless there is an in round impact.

Fiat - is a normative question regarding whether or not the aff/plan/advocacy ought happen. This does not mean that it does happen or would happen, if something wouldn't happen in the status quo, that is inherency for the aff. Many fiat debates that I've seen seem to assume other interpretations of fiat. Please explain for me your version and how it operates for me to be on the same page as you, otherwise I will presume this interpretation.

**These are just how I enter into a debate. Please obviously debate and win the arg and I will vote against my feelings.

If this isn't helpful please ask me questions before the round.

hi im kai! I did 4 years of debate in hs for Kamiak and im currently a senior studying computer science at university of Washington with a specializations in algorithms and ai! my debate background is that i did policy in hs and qualled to the toc and stuff. i also have coached policy, ld, and pufo since graduating.

my pronouns are he/him or they/them‏‏ i really have no preference.

add me to the email chain: daikaile13@gmail.com

NOTE: I have not judged debate for like 2 years, so please talk to me like i know legitimately nothing about the topic

policy paradigm

tldr – read whatever you want, im good with anything. I ran args from queer asian poetics to hard right policy affs so just argue well :)

some tips and things about me:

- more flow oriented and im fine with speed

- i don’t think debaters have to be nice, but please don’t be obnoxiously rude.

- i tend to nod my head to things that i am responding well to or if i’m confused it will probably be visible so looking up from the flow or computer occasionally could help u!

- i dont know much about this topic so pls avoid too jargon-y words!

- also it takes me afew seconds to adjust to spreading sometimes so if you could start your speech just a bit slower and then amp up in like 5 second to full speed that would help me a lot thnx!

‏‏‎ ‎

‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎topicality – because i’m not super familiar with the topic if you go for t I would appreciate you slowing down at parts so i can really digest the arguments. in general, im not the perfect judge for t but if you win it you win it

- for aff – the aff doesn’t win reasonability without a counter interpretation, however I think leaning on reasonability is usually the right move

- for neg – a good t debate should (1) have comparative impact calculus on the standards debate and (2) probably have a caselist. I do not think im the best judge to go for contrived t violations infront of because I tend to lean aff in those debates but also if you do impact calc right then it shouldn’t be small bc ur standards have massive implications for the topic.

‏

kritiks – where im most comfortable and have the most experience. but like a lot of k judges, I actually find myself voting against the k because teams tend to just throw out jargon words or find 6 different ways to make a “structural antagonism” link.

- the neg should contextualize the link to the aff, have external impacts for them, and explain why each one turns case and is a reason for competition. the link specificity is what makes k debate persuasive so take advantage of that. that being said, you need to win either an alt that resolves the links or a framework question that resolves your offense while nullifying the aff’s normative mode of politics.

- the aff should probably challenge the alt with both theory and substance, hedge back against self serving framework args, and answer the k contextually with the affirmative (as in don’t let your aff get lost in the muddle of ontology questions, keep it relevant and central to the debate). please just have a coherent strategy like if you are reading a hard right aff, impact turn the k and leverage your aff’s huge impacts. if you are soft left, you might not wanna say heg good but rather go for the perm with link turns and alt solvency deficits as net benefits. regardless, make it obvious to me that you have thought out the kritik prior to the round and have developed a larger narrative as to why the aff is still a good idea.

- as for literature bases im probably most familiar with antiblackness, queer theory, asian id, deleuze, imperialism/set col, and embodiment args. I am fine with Baudrillard, bataille, and psycho debates, but I’ll probably need you to unpack them a little more in cross-x and make arguments past ~we are insurrection and our performance is transgressive~.

‏‏‎ ‎‎

k affs – your aff should probably talk about the topic and should have a competing model of debate. if you are kritiking debate, i'll prob be more persuaded by framework but also if you win you win. embodiment framing? cool. semiotic insurrection? sure, why not. i myself did identity performance affs so I tend to like that avenue a bit better, but if you wanna do some white pomo stuff, and if you can explain high theory args in a way that is palatable and accessible to my feeble stem major brain then go for it! I will say that framing and impact calc is esp important in k aff v fw debates. the aff needs to explain to me why something like minority participation outweighs procedural fairness or how access controls the internal link to portable skills. the same goes for the neg, explain to me how your model of debate can encompass the aff’s offense or how procedural fairness is the only thing my ballot can solve in round. a lot of times in these debates it gets to the final rebuttals and both sides have just really not articulated why their thing is bigger and why it warrants a ballot which makes everybody in the room unhappy so pls try to do impact calc

- also, the neg should probably answer case, even if they aren’t “predictable” and you “don’t have well researched arguments”/ cards - you need to put ink on case because half the time just analytically breaking down how illogical the k aff’s method is can go a long way. I will say, however, I do think that the strat you go for should be tailored to the aff you’re hitting and it’s perceptually disappointing to watch an amazing k aff only to watch the neg stand up and read the most uninspired neg strat ever.

- i actually see myself voting for framework teams a lot because the aff really drops the ball and they let the debate no longer be about the 1ac but rather be about framework. please keep your aff alive and central in these type of debates - do things like extend the performance, explain why your FORM matters and why that warrants a ballot, etc.

- as for neg teams - i lean towards fairness being an internal link HOWEVER i will happily vote for it as an impact if you are winning it. i may be a more k leaning judge, but that also means i’m just as happy to reward well explained and framed arguments against them. but with that i will say - k affs some of the time can be unfair - so you should be too. read 6 off, 3 counterplans, make them go for condo and then go for t and say it outweighs. read their own cards back at them as piks and take advantage of the fact that they invited a debate that is ~unpredictable~. innovative strategies + warranted responses usually results in a win or at the very least much higher speaks

‏‏‎ ‎

disads – I don’t think I really need to explain much for this one but here are some of my thoughts – disad should turn case somehow and links should be contextualized. ptx disads can be really great arguments and I will reward well researched and original takes on the political process of enacting the plan. that being said, I don’t fw riders disads. I do think there can be 0% risk of a disad, esp given than the internal links are already extrapolated lol. case specific disads are always a plus. also, framing rarely is enough by itself to answer the disad bc of turns case args but if you win aff framing with defense/offense on the disad then you are prob in a good place

‏‏‎ ‎

counterplans – aff theory vs counterplans are underused and a necessary check against how abusive cps have become in debate. pics and process cps are probably abusive in truth but its debate so like if you win ur .01% better than the aff then im gonna pick you up no question. aff needs to win offense against the cp AND explain why that outweighs the net benefit.

‏‏‎ ‎‎

‎theory – underutilized in policy and can be really interesting to watch, so here are some of my opinions.

- condo is probably good but anything over 3 is ridiculous

- id rather see you go for substance than theory in a round where you are ahead on both and ill reward your speaks for doing so

- reading a ton of conditional planks that fiat away any solvency deficits is probably bad and I encourage aff teams to beat on this with theory‎

‏‏‎ ‎

case – do it please (esp the k teams out there). good case debate = good speaker points, and affs so often drop warrants in 1nc case answers that you should extend as conceded solvency arguments. and to the k teams, even reading links on case and contextualizing the argument to the specifics of the affs advocacy is enough for me. case turns are easily the sexiest arguments you can make infront of me so please do things like PLEASE read heg bad or china rise good esp when reading a k.

ld paradigm: I'm competent I swear but prefer progressive flavors of ld but I can evaluate traditional ld just fine

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

I'm a former policy debater with judging experience. I debated China Engagement, Education, and Immigration Restrictions.

Please wear a respirator/face mask. I will be wearing an N95

Topic specific; I'm an Atheist and a Materialist. Trying to claim ethical impacts on AI with regard to 'Human Creativity' or 'Soullessness' is a losing battle.

Email chain; clarissadebate@gmail.com

I do not claim to be 'tabula raza'. Everyone has biases and preferences and I'll enumerate them here. Debate is a social activity - Rules beyond time, evidence sharing, and clipping are yours to decide, interpret, and argue. My position is to give a ballot to a team, and maintain a safe* space for all debaters to participate in.

• Strongly prefer Kritikal debate - I ran psychoanalysis, settler colonialism, agamben, and capitalism K, but I'm broadly familiar with K literature.
• Read and understand your & your opponent's cards. I will be in agony if their warrants don't support the tag and nobody calls it out.
• Extinction is not always the biggest impact. I'm preferential towards Kritik linking to extinction impacts
• Strongly dislike Liberal theories of hegemony. If you want to run heg, be a realist about it.
• Topicality is always a valid question.
• At the end of the day, I will vote on just about anything if you can tell me why it is important in the round. The only exception to this are blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist arguments.

Speaker points;

I will NOT rate you on

• Dress
• "Enunciation"
• "Etiquette"
• How much emotion you speak with

I WILL rate you on

• Concision of your arguments
• How easy you make my note-taking. (Don't jump back and forth between flows, respond to arguments on the flow in the order they were made)
• Time prioritization
• Speaking at the rate that allows me to distinguish each word you say
• "You guys" <- immediate 20 speaker points

*do not attack your opponents, attack their arguments. refrain from commenting on your opponent's dress or manner of speech, only the arguments they present.

Last updated 1/12/24:

I mostly judge policy, for other events, go to the bottom.

Please add me if you are starting an email chain: steve _at_ interlakedebate _dot_ org (i'm not at Interlake anymore, but still using this account).

CX / Policy Philosophy:

TL;DR:

Mt. Vernon will be my first tournament on this topic so don't make assumptions about what acronyms or specific knowledge. I do have a good public policy and economics background, but please explain things.

If you are a policy team, I am likely good for you. If you are a team that runs Ks on the neg or K/Soft left impacts on a policy aff, I am probably fine for you. If you run a K-aff, I may or may not, please read below.

First and foremost, I judge based on the flow. I will do my best to determine the winner based on what has been said. This makes line-by-line refutation and dropped arguments important. I will do my best not to impose my opinions and values into the round. That being said, I am not strictly tabula rasa. See below for exceptions. By default, I will take a utilitarian approach.

Style

I want to see clash. This means that negatives should not ignore the 1AC. Affirmatives need to respond to the negative positions as they are presented not just read a generic block that only sort-of applies. If you are merely extending your own cards and not responding to the other side’s arguments, your speaker points will be lower.

I am fine with speed, but you need to be clear. Remember that, as a judge, I often do not have a copy of the evidence and especially the analytics on my computer. If I can't hear the words as you read the cards, you are going too fast for your ability. If I am going to judge on the flow, you want to make sure my flow matches what you said. This is especially important when it comes to theory. Reading your theory block at full speed guarantees that I won’t be able to flow it all. Slow down on theory.

Be nice. I will react negatively if you are arrogant or rude to your opponents. This applies to your partner as well. I do not want to see the debate personalized. Feel free to attack and characterize your opponents’ arguments as you like, but refrain from attacking your opponents themselves. Their arguments may be *-ist. Your opponents are not.

My pet peeve is flowing. Rather, teams that don’t flow. If you have to ask about whether your opponents read each card or if you respond to positions and arguments that they didn’t read, your speaks will be docked.

Theory
I enjoy the occasional theory debate, but it must be developed well. Everything you say needs a warrant. Develop your arguments if you want me to consider them. I am unlikely to decide an entire round based on an issue explained or extended in less than five seconds.

I am unlikely to find *-spec persuasive unless there is in-round abuse. I do find vagueness more interesting each year as teams make their plans less and less specific.

Topicality

I will vote on topicality. I evaluate it as a technical argument, no more dominated by truth than any other type of argument. I find myself drawn to the definitional debate over other aspects of T. That means you should focus on standards, definitions, and the fallout from those. I’m more persuaded by limits than ground. I will be unlikely to vote for reasonability unless there is a standard to determine whether something is, or is not, reasonable. I am unlikely to be persuaded by arguments that tell me to ignore topicality.

Kritikal Affs

It is my belief that the resolution must play a critical role in scoping debate and allowing for clash. To that end, while I will vote for a critical aff, I expect it to be germane to the resolution. Affs which are anti-topical will lose if the negative carries a reasonable version of that argument through to the end.

Case/Disads/CPs

This is my home turf. I want to see clash. Spotting the affirmative their advantages and trying to outweigh them with disads is not a good strategy. Contest the internal links and/or impacts. Run solvency takeouts. These make your off-case much more persuasive.

Kritiks

I am happy to vote on kritiks. You need to explain how I should be evaluating the k versus the case. Teams should feel free to challenge the a-priori status of the kritik. There needs to be some kind of benefit to the world of the alt. At the end of the day, I will be weighing it against the case. A K without an alt is just a non-unique, linear disad.

I expect that critical arguments will be supported by the evidence. This should go without saying, but I have seen teams give entire 2NCs that are not based on anything but their own opinion. Analogies and extrapolations are fine, but the basis for the analogy or the extrapolation should be in found in evidence.

Running a kritik is not an excuse for sloppy debate. I see too many kritik debaters that rest on truth over technical and ignore the structure of the debate. Direct refutation and line-by-line are still important even in the kritik debate.

I was primarily a policy debater in my day. I have judged many critical rounds and read some of the authors. My knowledge of them is reasonable, but if you run something outside of the common ones, explain it clearly.

Rebuttals

I try not to impose my views on the debate, but that requires debaters do a good job in the last two rebuttals crystalizing the issues and telling the story of the round. "We win the entire flow" is not usually true and is not a good way to weigh the issues. Tell me why your winning of the disad overwhelms the advantage of case or why their rhetorical slight is more important than structural violence. Make sure there is a traceable lineage to your arguments. I am strict on new arguments from the 1NR onward. Tell me that it’s new and, if true, I’ll strike it. You must tell me though. If you don’t, it counts. I will do my best to protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments.

Misc.

If you watch me, I tend to emote my opinions.

Many have asked: Tag-team CX is fine. I only request that the person who is “supposed” to be cross-examining be part of the conversation.

Background

I debated policy in high school and CEDA (policy) in college for a total of seven years, including four at Whitman College. I coached college policy for one year at the University of Puget Sound and have been coaching policy debate at Interlake High School since 2012.

----------------------------------------

Public Forum Judging Philosophy:

----------------------------------------

I don’t judge PF a lot so assume that I’m not deeply educated on the topic. That said, I read a lot of economics, politics, and philosophy so I am likely to be familiar with most arguments.

The best description of me is likely as a progressive, flow-oriented judge. I will be adjudicating the round based on who presents, and extends, the better arguments. I will try my best not to intervene. If you didn't say something, I won't make the argument for you. Sounding good making shallow arguments won’t earn you a win. In the end, I want to see clash. Don’t just tell me why you are right, you have to also tell me why they are wrong.

A few points that might matter to you:

1. Speed: Keep it easily comprehensible and you will be fine. In reality, I doubt you will exceed my threshold. If you do, I’ll yell clear.

2. Dropped arguments: There is no punishment for dropping your own arguments. Obviously, don’t drop something your opponent is turning.

3. I think definitions should be used strategically to define what interpretation of the resolution you will be defending.

4. I will reward clever debating. Show me how the arguments interact. Defend ground that avoids most of your opponent’s thrusts.

I'm a traditional LD judge - I prefer a traditional V/VC framework, and like a philosophical debate that substantively engages the resolution.

I have very limited tolerance for speed / lack of clarity.

Dylan Thomas

If there is an email chain feel free to include me. - dtdylanthomas10@gmail.com

4 years NDT-CEDA Debate (legalization through NHI), and an additional 4 of HS policy debate. One appearance in each the NDT, and outrounds at CEDA.

I am probably OK with whatever you plan on doing in front of me. At various points in time I have occupied the position of the nontopical debater, the topical kritik debater, and plan-focused policy analysis in my arguments. I've occupied a similar range of positions in my negative debates. I'm going to judge the debate in more or less the same fashion each time: I'm going to ascertain whether the aff has won any advantages, then I'm going to determine whether the neg has won any disadvantages, and then I'm going to compare.

The biggest thing you can do in front of me is clash. Stand up and tell me why your opponents' arguments are wrong. Too often recently I've watched debates that featured an attempted end-run around the debate - either their opponents just didn't get the case, or people are trying to execute some sneaky clever strategy, or something else entirely. In the right circumstances, and executed well these rounds are a lot of fun to watch. Unfortunately this is difficult to pull off, and its rare that the circumstances are correct. Most of the time the correct call is to just out-debate your opponents. (this is distinct from squirrelly, small affs with little link ground. Do those to your hearts content.)

Argumentative preferences

Almost all theory args aren't reasons to reject the team.

Fiat is illusory but so is the alt.

It is easier for me to vote for an argument that I agree with than ones I don't - which means it is very hard for me to vote arguments like death good etc. I straight up will not vote for things I fundamentally believe are bad. Positions such as death good might not be the best read in front of me.

It would behoove you to explain your alt.

I really like case debate. Debate the case. Extend the case. Outweigh with the case.

I generally prefer debaters to ask and answer their own questions - some interplay is inevitable and good (Even if you are not in CX you should not let our partner irredeemably screw up the round, for example), but be careful not to overdo it.

I have coached policy at Garfield High School since 2014. I have yet to encounter an argument I'm not OK with in a round; it's really about you and how well you explain your arguments and why they should win you the round. I think it's important to be responsive to the specific arguments in the round - don't just read your prewritten overview and assume it works for every debate. I enjoy both policy and critical arguments and have some background knowledge in theory, but don't assume I know your literature. In my opinion, it's your job to tell me how to vote in the round and why. If you leave it up to me, I tend to buy the argument that moral thinking is a prereq to policy making (but I can be convinced otherwise).

I am generally ok with most speed, but make sure I'm flowing if you're blazing through a bunch of analytics you don't want me to miss.

I don't know what "judge kicking" means - are you asking me to decide your strategy for you? I won't do that. Either go for the argument, or don't.

Bottom line: I'm a tabula rasa judge. Run whatever you would like to run, and tell me how you would like me to evaluate the round.

Email: jasoncxdebate@gmail.com

Experience:

I debated CX on the national circuit for 4 years in high school, did not debate in college. I coached CX at Garfield HS from 2014 - 2024. During that time I judged ~50 rounds a year, split between the local and national circuit. We took a team to the TOC in 2021. I've stepped back to more of a support role for the 2024 - 25 school year, so I have a little less familiarity with this topic. You might try to spell out acronyms a bit more for me to compensate for this.

My day job is as a social science researcher who does a lot of applied research with Indigenous, Black, and BIPOC communities. This keeps me pretty engaged with philosophical and critical theoretical literature, and very attendant to questions of power and equity. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male who was educated and socialized within a Western context, which undoubtedly shapes my epistemic view of the world.

Feelings about specific things:

T/FW: Excellent. Specific and creative violations are more fun to judge than generic ones
DA: Great.
CP: Awesome. Highly specific CP strategies (such as PICs) tend to produce more interesting debates than generic CPs, but they certainly both have their place.
Ks: Excellent. Especially if you can articulate specific links to the aff

Policy affs: Great
K affs: Awesome. I find that K vs K debates are often more interesting than K vs FW debates, but that isn't always the case

Theory: Good. If you want to win on theory, make it more substantive than a few warrantless blips
Disclosure Theory: Not very convincing for me. I think that the open source/disclosure movement within debate has been somewhat uncritically embraced in a way that doesn't fully consider how the open sourcing of knowledge reproduces new forms of inequity (often along neoliberal/service economy lines, wherein better resourced teams are better able to take advantage of the open knowledge economy).
New arguments in the rebuttals: Generally not a good idea. Completely new arguments should not be made in the rebuttals. I will strongly protect the negative team from new arguments in the 2AR.
Judge Kicking: Nope. Don't expect me to judge kick things for you. Make a strategic choice for yourself.
Overviews and impact calculus: Yes, please. Clearly frame my choice for me at the end of the round, and you are much more likely to get my ballot. Also, 'even if' statements can be super persuasive in the final rebuttals.
Backing up Claims with Warrants: Super important.
Impact Calculus and Overviews: Also super important - I like being told how I should vote, and why you think I should vote that way.
Clipping: Don't do it, I will vote you down for cheating.
Speaking: Please be clear! If you're clear, then I am fine with speed. Clarity is especially important in the online debate format.
Dropped arguments: These flow through as 'true' for the team making them.
Voting: I will vote for one team over the other. Don't ask for a double win (or loss).

At the end of the day, I believe that debate should be about the debaters and not about me. My job is to create a safe and educational space, and to do my best to decide the round based on the arguments rather than on my own beliefs. If you clearly tell me how you think I should be judging, then there shouldn't be any big surprises.