mitchell,kevin


 * Resume**- I'm finishing up my senior year debating at Charles Page High School. This is my 4th year in and this year my partner and I went undefeated at districts and are going to nationals. We would have been in the top bracket at state but we couldn't attend regionals (Surgery).

As far as judging goes I just look at my flow and see who's winning. Impact calc in the last 2 speeches will go a long way. I prefer to stay out of rounds and I'll vote were you tell me. Line by line is the best way to debate. Seriously best ever.


 * T**- I really like it that's what I would always take in the block. But to win it you must prove the ground loss. Potential abuse is a voter. In the block don't just read a bunch of cards saying the same thing as your shell did, analysis of your interp and why there's is bad. The same goes for standards don't just read a whole bunch of yours attack theirs. Critically arguing T is weak but if it goes dropped or answered EXTREMELY poorly I'll vote there.


 * Procedurals-** I'll vote here if I have to but not a big fan of dumb procedurals but if you tell me I should vote here than I will.


 * Theory-** The way I see it, if it's a big deal you'll spend a good amount of time on it. I'm big time Multiple Worlds Bad.


 * DA's- These are cool just make sure you impact them well. (Politics is awesome)

K's-** I'll flow anything you want but there are a few things to keep in mind... 1. If you run it as part of a contradictory strat that the aff calls you on then your in trouble because I'm strongly against Multiple Worlds. (Nietzsche and T or Cap and a Spending DA) 2. Understand your stuff if you don't get the K well then don't run it even if there is a strong link there. 3. The round is about the aff not whatever your whining about so you need to have a specific link or root cause. Not they use the state and that's bad.
 * CP-** I'll take whatever you give me. It doesn't have to solve case but the Net Benefits do have to o/w if you want to win. Consults are fine just make sure they have a net benefit.


 * Weird Stuff-** I have to flow what's said in round but if the aff gets up and puts some semi-legitimate answers down then that's where I'm leaning because they are playing your game. That being said however the aff has to answer it they can't just stand up and cry.


 * Evidence vs. Analytics**- It's all about the warrants. I'll vote on the most logical and well explained argument. By the way "I have a card" isn't well explained nor logical, you need to attack what there saying.


 * Cx**- Open is fine but if it is in something that involves speaks, and your partner is doing all the answering/asking then it will show in your speaks.