Mai,+Kenneth

I debated in high school for two years, and spent a summer at camp.

Compared to the general debate atmosphere, I'm somewhat more traditional. That is to say, I don't particularly like policy tactics and arguments [Ks in particular, and to a lesser degree Theory and CPs] to be used in LD. I wouldn't say that I won't evaluate them at all, but they hold little weight with me in comparison to real arguments. I am a big fan of arguments linking to the criterion/a, of crisp extensions, and of clear impact analysis.

One more important thing to know: I'm not very good with speed. I personally read through a page of case in just under two minutes, and I can flow something that's somewhat faster than that, but not by far. I may still understand your arguments, but I won't have a nice visual cue to make sure that I'm remembering everything correctly. If you do spread, make sure to re-explain the arguments that matter in your rebuttals.

Ultimately, I judge based on the flow. If you convince me that you win your arguments, and that your arguments link to the value/criterion, then you win the round.