I'll judge- I try my best to be tab- I have a few biases that I try to minimize. I'd rather see good debating on an arg I'm not familiar with than terrible debates on args I go for.
T- like it- you should have a coherent vision of the topic- interps/counter interps like "this aff is topical" annoy me- you should be defining the term in the rez, not the plan. I default to competing interps, could possibly be persuaded by reasonability, but the aff would have to be pretty far ahead
DA's- love them. You should read them. I'm pretty convinced politics da's are in fact intrinsic to the plan. For politics, I think uniqueness can control the direction of the link, but I'll listen to arguments contrary. For disads where uniqueness is not as much of a yes/no question, I find link controls uq persuasive.
CP's- I think that cp's should probably have a solvency advocate. One condo is probably fine, and 2 makes sense, more than that seems unnecessary, but do what you can defend. If you win conditionality is bad against one conditional advocacy, then I will vote aff- debate is a technical game. I'd prefer cp's to be textually and functionally competitive, although functional competition seems more relevant to me than textual competition.
K's- Not well read in the literature, however, they are just another argument. To go for a K in the 2nr, you have to
1. explain your argument well enough so that i can explain to the other team why they lost
2. make specific arguments about why the 1ac (preferably the plan) links to the kritik
3. Make sequencing arguments about what to prioritize
4. Make args about why the k outweighs and turns the case
Theory- I'm probably decent for the aff on theory just because I'm willing to listen to a theory debate. I think that debaters should leverage their standards that the other team probably dropped (because they probably just inserted their conditionality good block) and implicate why that outweighs/turns the opposing standards. I will not vote on perm theory. that is clearly a reason to reject the argument. I will vote on cp theory, but there must be an overwhelming reason why it is a voting issue.
K aff's- My default is that the aff will defend the implementation of a topical plan. The further from this statement you stray, the harder it is going to be to win in front of me. Again, do what you will defend, I'm not going to vote you down on pure ideology.