Choe,+June

he/him/his

email: jchoe001 at gmail


 * I'm half deaf in my left ear

Notre Dame 2012 - 2016 Northwestern 2016 - 2020

Judging/coaching for: Notre Dame, New Trier

Overall experience: ~70 varsity policy debates judged; about a dozen elim rounds

Rounds judged on education topic: ~20


 * Nit-picky things:**

- time yourselves! (i reserve the right to arbitrate disputes resulting from forgetting to set time, 8min 1nrs, etc.) - flashing/email isn't prep just do it fast please - disclose what happened in the round onto the wiki before my rfd (I type out most of my comments on tab so you'll have plenty of time)


 * My quirks as a judge that you shouldn't freak out over:**

- I don't flow the 1AC. I prefer to read along as you give the speech. It helps me grasp the stasis (hopefully) of the debate better. - I make a lot of facial expressions but I'm not overt about it. You'll see it if you pay attention but I won't show it to the extent that it disrupts the flow of debate. - I randomly alternate between flowing on computer and paper. Still in the process of figuring out which is better for me. - I write comments on the ballot as the debate progresses while it's still fresh in my memory but I don't actually write my RFD until after the debate is over. - I like to take my time with my RFDs. If you want/need to get out earlier then just let me know and you can excuse yourselves. Most of what I say is written out in the comments section of the tabroom ballot anyways.

=**--- Actual Paradigm ---**=

**General**
More Policy than K.

I don't think that there can be absolutely zero risk of anything but I do think that a risk can be so low that I can ignore it.

Topicality
My default paradigm is that topicality is a debate over differing normative visions of debate and their implications for debaters and debate as an activity, but I can be convinced otherwise. Neg should provide a caselist and impact out their standards (ground is not an impact it's an internal link to terminal, portable impacts like research skills). Likewise, the aff should impact out their offense i.e. overlimiting and reasonability.

I like card-heavy T-debates and I tend to lean neg on big topics.

Disads
Sure. I'm tech>truth when evaluating disads - In a tie-breaker situation, I lean towards arguments that makes the most logical case in context of the round. Obviously applies only to a reasonable extent and I rarely consult this paradigm.

Politics DA's are ok. I love it when they're innovative/tricky. I don't really like riders, time/focus tradeoff links, etc.

I like reading cards - please have good evidence.

Counterplans
Anything goes if you can win that your counterplan is legitimate. With that being said, I'm a bit tougher on the neg with counterplan theory than others, so treat the theory debate like a T debate and define your standards, impact it out, etc.

I'm persuaded by sufficiency framing but am not super persuaded by 1% risk of net benefit.

I don't default to judge-kick but I'm more than willing to hear a debate on whether that's a thing I should do.

Kritiks
This section is always toughest to write on. I "know" K things but I think it'll help you all more if I just came out and said **I have a high threshold for voting for the K**. I haven't been voting for the K much, and when I have, it's been the very mainstream ones like security, neolib, wilderson, etc.

That being said, K debates are my favorites to judge when done correctly. Speaking from experience debating/judging, a solid, well-established K is much better than a new, hip, innovative K. It won't really impress me if you've personally "invented" a K with a new name.

"Non-traditional" affs
They're fine. They should probably have something to do with the topic but the meaning of that statement is obviously up for debate. I think that k on k debates are fun and should probably include a discussion of whether aff gets perm. If you're neg, don't throw shit at the wall and see what sticks (I don't have a strict criterion for this but I'll know it when I see it).

I don't think framework is a "generic" vs. k affs. I think with the right nuances, it's probably the best substantive argument. Usually I find the impact debate very lacking from the neg, while it is way too heavily focused on by the aff. I think my judging record on framework vs. k aff is about 60/40.

Theory
As a default, I consider conditionality to be the only worthy theory argument to be a voting issue.

I don't like performative contradictions.

Speaker points
Things that improve your speaks: - good cx - straight turn strategies - impact turns - smart counterplans with coherent solvency advocates

Things that tank your speaks: - being a dick to your partner/opponents/me - making debate an unsafe place - not timing yourselves - being unclear