Debated for four years at the Historic Little Rock Central High School, active on the National Circuit.

Paperless: I stop prep when the flash drive is pulled from the computer. Please try to be efficient with speech flashing times or I might get annoyed.

In general, I’m open to debaters making whatever arguments they like as long as it is a coherent argument that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I will default to evaluating the debate by what was said in the debates and not my personal dispositions. I also think that it is important for teams to engage with the others arguments. If there is any constant theme throughout my paradigm, it should be

First, "only a sith deals in absolutes"--flexibility and adaptation in both argument style and in-round argument selection are things I value highly.

Second is simply a concerted effort to be as open minded/reasonable as possible in evaluating arguments--what that means is that I am most comfortable voting for you when you win debates outright, flow-by-flow. Line-by-line and good technical debating are at a premium here.

Third--I would prefer debaters do what they are best at, rather than try to fit within my specific argument preferences.

In terms of specific arguments:

Topicality: Topicality speaks to my soul in a way many arguments don't. I'm a sucker for a good T debate (from both the aff and neg though, don't just throw a random violation in the 1NC to pander to this).

Disadvantages: I mean, they're disads. Fairly straightforward.

Counterplans: I enjoy a well thought out counterplan almost as much as I enjoy a T debate. Keep in mind the phrase "well thought out"--the less germane the CP is to the aff, the more wiling I am to lean aff on questions of theory. That doesn't mean much though, and as a debater I loved pulling off sneaky counterplans. If you win that it's legit, I'll evaluate it as such,

Criticisms: I have a lot of experience here, but also am a firm believer in the fundamental technical execution that wins flows, regardless of the lit base they stem from. e.g. I would be more persuaded to vote for your K if you treated it like a disad and counterplan rather than a social justice call-to-arms that should somehow include my person or my ballot.

K Affs: If it's your thing do it, just be aware that my love of topicality does extend to framework args, and I would consider myself willing to vote for a well defended interpretation of the resolution when some judges would not.

Theory: I enjoy warranted theory debates but teams must engage each other’s arguments. Don’t just read your blocks at each other approach theory like every other argument. You should have warranted responses to their argument that include disadvantages to the other teams interpretation and reasons that yours is preferable. Don’t just blaze through theory debates at full speed or I won’t be able to flow it.

Cross-examination: it’s important. A well executed cross x can substantially mitigate an argument or drastically improve your speaker points.
If you have any specific questions feel free to ask me before the debate.