Kinney+AJ

Policy Debate
I am open to any arguments, if you can explain them well, and more importantly explain why they matter. I am very favorable to a Kritikal approach, but if it is an obscure literature base, it is imperative that you expand a bit on the concepts. Line-by-line is important to me, so please remember to extend. Analysis is a must, don't just throw cards at me. Speed is fine, just be clear or else it won't be flowed, and it is good practice to slow down slightly on tag lines. And remember: tell me what I can do as the JUDGE with the ballot, why signing it for you is the best option.

Topicality/Theory
I have a moderate threshold for theory arguments, if there is a clear abuse scenario I am much more willing to vote on it. I will vote on potential abuse, but in that case you need to explain to me *why* potential abuse is so bad, and what I can do to stop the harms. Again, I am willing to vote on RVIs, but I'm much more inclined to if there is a clear abuse scenario (i.e. Topicality is blatantly used as a time skew or something like that. On Topicality arguments, there needs to be clash between standards. If you are Aff, it is important that, even if you provide a counter interpretation, you also provide a we-meet. Also, I will usually default to a Reasonability approach, so explain to me why I should take a competing interpretations approach if that is what you're going for.

CPs
Counterplans should always have a net benefit, else there is no reason that I should prefer it to the world of the Aff. I will usually prefer a CP that is functionally competitive to one that is merely textually competitive.

Kritiks
With any Kritik, a strong alt is key, otherwise it serves as nothing more than a case turn. Neg teams, the link is the most important part of a K, even if you have it well impacted, I try to look for strong, specific links to the case. I am open to voting on scenarios both in- and out-of-round, so be sure to make the framework and role of the ballot clear.

LD Debate
Coming from a background of policy, I find the line-by-line to be extremely important, and will typically judge off of the flow. This means I will be look both for arguments to be extended, but more importantly that they be impacted out. Analysis is what seperates a mediocre debate from an excellent debate; don't just throw facts at me, explain to me as the judge what it all means. I can take speed, just remember to be clear. If I can't understand it, it won't be flowed.

CPs
If you run a CP, it is imperative that you demonstrate a net benefit, or else there is no reason for me to vote on it versus the Aff, even if solvency can be demonstrated. If you run against a CP, please please PLEASE remember to Perm the CP, explain why there is no net benefit to the CP, and why the Aff solves best.

DAs
I am fine with DAs, as long as you can uniquely link them to the case, and provide well warranted impacts. When running against a DA, remember to show me why the case outweighs, as well as do some work on attacking the link.

Theory/Topicality
I'd say my threshold for theory is moderate, I prefer to vote on clear abuse scenarios, but am not averse to voting on potential abuse provided that you can explain to me why I, as a judge, should care about potential abuse. I am also open to voting on RVIs, also provided that you can give me a good explanation/ impacted voters. On T, remember to impact your voters, and don't forget to specifically show me why your voters are better than theirs.