Jayakumar,+Sriram

I was a policy debater for 4 years at Lexington High School, 2005-2009. Subsequently, I just have judging experience.
 * Experience**

Overall, I will vote for any type of argument, as long as you convince me. Keep in mind that I state my preferences below, not how I am bound to voting.
 * Philosophy**

I like a good cross-examination, and good clarity during a speech. I would like every sentence of evidence that you read to be heard and processed by both me and the other debaters. In front of me, //I'd prefer you go a little bit slower than normal//. Directly respond to each others' arguments, compare evidence, and don't just reiterate what the evidence says. Extrapolate it. Don't make brand new arguments that drop out of the sky in the rebuttals, though reading more evidence is acceptable.

I don't like blatantly contradictory arguments. For example, I don't like running a capitalism K simultaneously with DA claiming the aff hurts US economic growth. From a logical standpoint, I'm fine with the neg presenting multiple conditional arguments (including the status quo), though from a stylistic perspective I'd like a more focused debate from the get-go.

I am less familiar with K literature, so more explanation will be required.

Be ethical, and be nice.

Below are my thoughts on specific arguments:
 * Specific Arguments**

//DA//. I appreciate good impact calculus. //T//. I will vote on this. The neg should prove the aff interpretation of the resolution is detrimental to debate. //Theory//. By default, I will reject the argument, not the team. //K//. As I mentioned above, I am not well-versed in the literature, so do more explanation for me. Present a good methodology for how I should decide the round. //Case//. If the neg proves the aff is very ineffective, why do something with almost no positive effects? //Performance//. I don't have too much experience with this.