Kam,+Mingching

Strikes: Columbia University

I debated 4 years at Stuyvesant High School, and 3 years at Columbia University. I think the most important thing in debate is to articulate arguments well in a strategic manner. For me, speaker points are directly correlated with how strategically arguments are explained in later speeches. Therefore, I don't think certain arguments are "better" or "worse" than others, though they can certainly be "more strategic" or "less strategic."

Example: If it is most strategic to go for a bad theory argument (no neg fiat on the CP flow), and you shut all doors properly, I think that's what you should do, and you will be rewarded with high speaks if you execute properly.

As for my experience with different types of arguments, I debated mostly straight up case/politics/counterplan throughout high school, though I did work with Shree Awsare a little (way) too much at Columbia and that has contributed to many K/performance debates. I'm open to hearing anything from Cap to Baudrillard to Psychoanalysis (as long as you articulate it well and develop strategic positions).