Kann,+Will

Short version: Run whatever you want, I'll vote on any argument with an impact and explanation/analysis.

Longer: I'm a varsity debater for Cedar Rapids Washington. I've been to a decent amount of tournaments this year and I attended four weeks of camp at SDI so I'm pretty familiar with the topic.

Speed is fine, tag team C/X is fine, no prep time for flashing but don't make it excessive or steal prep.

Don't cheat or be rude - if I catch you doing either I'll probably tank your speaks.

I will evaluate all arguments objectively to the best of my ability, I leave it to the debaters to frame the debate and advocate their positions effectively. All styles of argumentation are fine as long as you impact them and tell me how I should evaluate them within the round, as I judge I will not interfere unless it's absolutely necessary.

Specific arguments: D/As: Sure, have a good scenario that links to the aff. I'm willing to evaluate zero risk, especially in the case of conceded arguments or logical fallacies that are pointed out to me.

CPs: I have no preferences for what CP you read, theory and abuse is debatable by the teams.

Theory: Do it, I love theory debates. HOWEVER, if you want me to vote on it I need a coherent reason why I should reject the team. Don't forget to impact your arguments and answer theirs. Don't expect me to want to vote on it if you're just spreading and extending theory blips, those mean nothing to me.

Ks: I will definitely vote on the K. Framework can easily go either way, I usually prefer to just evaluate it as a tie and let the aff weigh the case. I'll hold Ks to the same standard that I hold other arguments, explain it and give me a definitive reason to vote negative.