Debated for Hightower High School for 2 Years, and Dulles High School for 2 Years, I now debate for the University of Texas.

Overview: I am fine with any sort of argument you wish to present, counterplans, kritiks, topicality, etc. I prefer to see the debaters run what arguments they feel they are good at.

More specifically:
Kritiks--- I like to see a well researched kritik that is specific to the 1AC. The 2NR needs to be very heavy on analysis on the impact level. Obviously the kritik should not be too abstract that it does not answer the premise of the 1AC or the 1AC's framing.

Disads--- I love a good disad debate. Be clear on the story of the argument, just reading cards is not the way to implement the argument. I also want to remind you that their needs to be good impact comparison, I can't automatically assume the disad outweighs if you win it.

Counterplans-- I have no biases against any type of counterplan. I am fine with counterplans that have kritikal net benefits, just know that the story needs to be clear.

Topicality/Theory--- I like theory and topicality debates. I don't have any particular bias in any specific direction, I can definitely be persuaded to vote on theory, but I will scrutinize the 2AR heavily for new arguments.

Framework vs kritik affs--- framework debates are fine with me, i have no biases on these issues, but i do find that a lot of debaters mishandle kritikal offense.

CX--- I generally flow cross-x. i think this is very important and emphasize that you utilize cross-x to the best of your ability.

Paperless--- Try not to hold up the debate to an excessive degree, I have seen paperless teams that are very efficient (good) and on the other hand i have seen paperless teams that take way too long to exchange cards to the viewing computer (bad).