Ken+Norman

**Debate judging experience**: parent of a fourth-year VLD debater from Princeton High School; I judge at a couple of tournaments each year.
 * Updated for the 2015 Princeton Classic:**

**Likes**:
 * (most important): clear explanation of the ballot story
 * signposting
 * solid evidence/links and an understanding of the strengths and limitations of evidence
 * thorough explanation of frameworks as they get farther from the stock
 * well constructed arguments that do justice to the topic

**Speed**: I can't flow circuit-level speed and pushing that limit won't make me more likely to vote for you. I can flow fast conversational pace. I will let you know if I can't flow you by saying slow or clear, but by then it means I've already missed something.

**Theory**: I am unfamiliar with theory debates in general and unlikely to be persuaded by theory as a reason to drop the debater. Theoretical reasons for me to drop an argument should be clearly explained, but even then, these are not strategic ways to win my vote.

**Kritikal arguments and role of the ballot**: I have an extremely high threshold to vote on a kritikal role of the ballot. If I am judging you in an outround, try to give me another reason to vote for you (a reason consistent with traditional paradigms of LD).