Kim,Eunice

Affiliation: Lexington, Stuyvesant

I debated for CPS in high school and just recently graduated. I switched from being a 2N to a 2A my senior year, so I’m not particularly biased either way when it comes to theory (although I will say that we went for it enough times for me to believe that it is a viable 2ar choice). I’m not completely oblivious about the topic and I’ve judged at a couple of small tournaments in the north east on this topic.


 * DA/CP**- I love listening to a good straight up debate, but I don’t like counterplans without actual solvency advocates. The aff should capitalize on this as a solvency deficit. Same with links. I hate shitty politics cards, and if neither team tells me how to interpret the card, I’ll probably conclude that it actually has nothing to do with the debate. I’m fine with procedural counterplans, but I think consult counterplans are ultimately bad for debate.


 * Kritiks** – I am not familiar with a vast majority of the literature, but you are more than welcome to go for the K as long as you can contextualize it in terms of the aff. In highschool, my partner and I read security and Foucault. Jargon won’t get you very far, especially if I’m not familiar with the argument (Baudrillard, Lacan, Zizek). I don’t really like it when 2NCs/2NRs have all their arguments in the overview and cross-apply them on the line-by-line. I’ll manage, but it will negatively affect your speaker points.


 * Aff-** In high school I read a lot of K-ish affs, and I’m more predisposed than other judges to vote on systemic impacts and the like. However, if you do go for those arguments, you have to really engage on a framework debate and tell me why I don’t evaluate the debate quantitatively. I’m completely fine with big stick affs (although I think most of those affs on this topic are contrived).


 * Framework** – Personally, the middle ground is best. As a judge, I can be convinced otherwise. If you’re going to start the framework debate, I expect a lot of work from both sides. In applicable debates, to me, framework is as (if not more) important as impact calculus.


 * Theory** – Like I said before, I’d like to think that I’m not biased, but I will definitely vote on it if it is impacted well. That means proving the abuse in the round going beyond fairness and education. You probably should not drop theory of any shape or form in front of me.


 * Topicality** – Normally, I think the topic should constantly be evolving, but I feel like this year’s topic is particularly difficult for the neg when it comes to predictability. I think the intent and quality of the definition is very important and it’s really important for the aff to prove otherwise. Like theory, you have to impact it beyond fairness and education.

I’m ok with speed, and if you’re unclear I’ll let you know. High speaks are rewards for a synthesis of quality arguments and presentation.