Han,+Donghee

=

 * Debate Experience:** I was an LD debater in (2011-2014) and am currently a policy debater for Missouri State University (2014-present). I occasionally judge LD and CX at some local tournaments in Austin and some in Missouri. I judged TFA State 2015 and MSHSAA State 2015.=====

__**GENERAL JUDGING THINGS**__ I don't go to debate tournaments planning on using as much brain power as possible. So if you're gonna spread, reuse names of cites towards the rebuttals just in case I don't catch it the first time; especially if they're important for the round. post and keep things organized. Thanks

__General__ - I acknowledge UIL as a very traditional circuit; typically with schools without much funding. So to keep playing fields as leveled as possible, I will judge strictly based on value/criterion paradigms. No spreading. If you try to troll your opponents with a "progressive" K or stray from traditional LD values, I'll probably vote you down. If you need to run a K, there's no reason you can't put it into a value/criterion format. I think LD is critical in nature anyway.
 * __LD -__** **__UIL__**

__Theory__ - I'm on the fence about this in UIL but if there is clear abuse in the round, I will accept it.

Don't bring in your progressive debate strategies here.

__Value/Criterion__ - I consider this to be a good starting point for framework but by no means do I need it in this format. Values are usually arbitrary and so vague they don't mean much. However if aff provides one but the neg doesn't provide and can't link into the aff's, that sucks for the neg (and vis versa). Criterion is the role of the ballot and is __**NECESSARY**__. This is how I weigh the round.
 * __LD - TFA__**

__Framework__ - Framework is largely important because LD is critical in nature. It's how I view the round. Even if you don't put it in value/criterion format, I expect a developed framework.

__Plan-text affs__ - I hate these so much and think they're dumb (these should die). But it doesn't seem like the TFA LD community really cares. My beef? But run it if you want. If the above issues don't become a problem in the round, I won't say anything. Make sure you have a framework and a role of the ballot (probably util). Develop it in the 1AC. There's not enough time in LD to make it appear in the 1AR. If you neatly section it off to framing, inherency, solvency, adv1, adv2 (and I expect you to), I flow each on it's own page. Sooooooo DON'T COLLAPSE THEM ALL TO ONE PAGE and tell me the road map is "aff and neg".
 * 1) Extra T. No one cares who does it and how they do it.
 * 2) Expands ground way too much. The interpretation allows you to pick literally any country. No one will ever find enough cards to have an actual debate of what plan affs are intended to do. There's a reason policy debate limits the resolution to the USFG. It typically turns into a framework debate so just spend the entire 6 minutes developing it.
 * Honestly, I think "progressive plan-aff" debaters should just get a partner and do policy where it's the norm.
 * 1) No one develops a framework for these rounds....... dafuq? How do I weigh a util vs. ontology framework when it's never debated??? (I default to aff fw if no one cares enough to establish one btw)
 * 1) No one develops a framework for these rounds....... dafuq? How do I weigh a util vs. ontology framework when it's never debated??? (I default to aff fw if no one cares enough to establish one btw)

__Solvency__ - I don't assume the aff needs solvency. Ought = moral obligation. If you think they do, then run theory. Run theory if you think they need any other "progressive" principles like implementation.

__K__ - Read the value/criterion & framework parts. Make sure there is a role of the ballot (aka the criterion). I think the aff should get to weight their case against the K but if you don't think so, make sure your framework debate says so.

__Other "Policy" arguments__ - Make sure there's a framework for the neg in general. Read #4 and the bottom part of plan-text- affs part. Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, and Impact are all important.

__Theory__- Theory is fine. Interp, violation, reasons to prefer, standards, voters.

__Flex prep__ - yeah. __**CX - UIL**__

I acknowledge UIL as a very traditional circuit; typically with schools without much funding. So to keep playing fields as leveled as possible, I will judge pretty traditionally. Treat me as a lay judge. The format that I'm comfortable with is inherency, solvency, and advantages. No spreading

Don't bring in your progressive debate strategies here. I'll probably vote you down if you stray too much away from traditional policy debate.

__**CX - TFA**__ I'm so tired of typing. Do whatever you want. But affs should be able to weigh their case against the K. If you don't think so, make sure your framework debate says so.