Sahara+Khan+Judge+Philosophy

I am a student at the University of Texas at Austin. I debated VCX for 3 years in high school, running mostly policy affs with critical impacts and using DA/ case or K/ case strategy on the neg, T only when necessary. Nonetheless, I genuinely appreciate all types of arguments as long as they are well impacted, well explained, and provide significant clash with the opposing team's arguments.
 * So basically...
 * I will vote on any argument as long as the team provides a convincing ROB. Impact calc is extremely important and should be at least 15 seconds of every speech (starting in the 2AC if possible) and getting more detailed as the debate progresses. Do not just repeat yourself--have a proper extension. This goes for all arguments.
 * The 1AC
 * If the aff fails to clearly the plan text and at least some solvency in the 1AC, the debate is pretty much over.
 * T
 * I'll vote on neg on T, but I want to see interesting and elaborate theory.
 * T should concern a significant word in the resolution ( i.e. the semicolon ,"the", and "and" are usually not convincing, but "USFG" can be fine depending on circumstance. Key topic words are always good).
 * If this is your main strategy, spend significant time on it; it should not be a last ditch effort.
 * If the aff fails to answer T in the 2AC and the neg calls them out in the 2NC, I consider this an automatic neg win.
 * DA
 * Have updated uniqueness cards, please. Impact cards need to be specific to your link story and/or plan text to convince me.
 * CP
 * I really hate PICs. Multi-actor, agent, and pretty much all other CP's are fine with me as long as you justify them.
 * I will definitely consider internal net benefits, but I really prefer to evaluate a DA+CP strategy
 * K/ K affs
 * K's need Alts. Period.
 * Be careful running Fem K's. I love them, but I also know a lot about them, so make sure you have read the literature behind them or at least know what you are talking about.
 * Unfortunately, I am comparatively not very knowledgable when it comes to Race Ks/ K affs, but am open to voting on them as long as they are clearly justified.
 * Must be relevant to the case!! If the aff calls you out on a vague, non-specific link card and you don't have another card/ really good justification, I won't take the link seriously. I think vague, one-size-fits-all link cards don't really do much for debate education.
 * Theory
 * SLOW DOWN when you say these! I want to flow them all!
 * numbering you arguments in a list is always helpful
 * The best theory arguments are the ones you write yourself! Make them as specific as possible.
 * Framework
 * Necessary as soon as possible when there is a clear difference in the way both teams want me to view the debate. Even if I like your other arguments a lot, if the other team beats you on framework you probably won't win.
 * Speaking/ Conduct
 * Give me a clear roadmap and do your best to go right down the flow
 * I am totally okay with spreading, but clarity obviously comes first. If I have to shout "CLEAR" more than three times, I will do my best to flow your speech, but I make no promises.
 * You don't need to claim "abuse". It's annoying.
 * I won't let you lose a round just for being mean, but I will deduct significant speaks if I think there is unnecessary hostility/ personal attacks. That being said, don't be afraid to be a little sassy/ snarky when appropriate.
 * Phones as timers? absolutely. I actually prefer teams keep track of their own time.
 * Open CX is fine with me! But keep in mind that if I notice one partner answering significantly more than the other, this will affect speaks a little.