Lee,+Jonathan+Won

__** //bio// **__ - i am a rising junior at clackamas hs, an obscure school in oregon - i'll readily admit: i am (probably) not qualified or experienced enough to judge your round unless you happen to be a complete novice - my competitive success in the activity has been limited and virtually all of my experience has been local, __but__ i do love debate and will try as hard as i can to render a legitimate verdict

__ **//general//** __ - slow debate is bad debate, i.e. fast -> high speaks. that being said, unclear debate is obviously bad and nullifies any benefits of speed - if you opt not to be ultra-speedy, be exceptionally efficient and i’ll also grant high speaks - speaks are (somewhat) arbitrary, but will mostly be determined by a mixture of presentation, technical proficiency, and the difficulty of the tournament

here’s a brief rubric that i stole from adam martin: - Above 29.5: I will spend tonight crying about how beautifully you debated - 29.5: I will tell my friends about you - 29 – 29.5: You should get a top 5 speaker award - 28.7 – 29: You should probably break - 28.5 – 28.7: You gave solid speeches - 28 – 28.5: You are a good debater, some strategic errors - 27.5 – 28: You are decent, but made many errors - 27 – 27.5: You made many mistakes, and probably lost the debate for your team - 26.5 – 27: You made many errors and should end 1-5 or 0-6 - 26 – 26.5: You shouldn’t be in whatever level of debate you are - Under 26: You were incomprehensible or offensive - 0: ethics violation

__ **//k’s//** __ - i am not very good for the k. i’ve never understood most k’s and i am highly inept at going for them. i have an admittedly limited understanding of philosophy, am skeptical of alt solvency/ “k tricks”, and happen to be very liable to vote on silly stuff like perm 2x. i also find it very difficult to vote on something which is not an effect of the plan’s implementation - if you choose to go for the k: i dislike massive overviews, embedding clash at the active expense of rejoinder, etc. the solution is to be technically proficient - treat k debate like a hardcore cp+da debate - i would highly prefer that your overview be 1 minute tops - rather than rehash the thesis of the k, point out technical concessions that would be awkward to emphasize on the k-proper. if you want to make the thesis of the k clear, do so by infusing excellent explanation and analysis into the line by line - trigger warnings: if your strategy relies on giving or forcing a disclosure of orientation and/or discussing queer violence, strike me. they are certainly important topics that deserve attention so i respect teams that confront these issues, but right now i am personally uncomfortable discussing/adjudicating them. a note to teams: regardless of the round/opponent/judge, please ask for trigger warnings because some people are sensitive and are not ready to discuss certain issues with others - i very much dislike high theory and pomo: dng, baudrillard, or even lighter stuff like virilio will make me cry

__ **//k affs//** __ - i believe that affs must defend a topical affirmation of the resolution - obvi this doesn’t require traditional “roleplaying” biz, but non-USfg advocacies are highly susceptible to t or FW absent some sort of technical blowout - t does not equal FW - both args have their different strategic applications and should thus be answered and executed differently - k affs with a plan are far better in my opinion, and the corresponding extra-T arg is a bad one and is better articulated as a ROB/fw question

__ **//theory//** __ - my first experiences with debate were in LD, so i really like theory. RVI’s and OCI’s, however, only make sense due to the time structure of LD - if you’re a policy debater sry - be technical! - i default to reject the arg ofc, except for condo - condo debates are my favorite debates. it requires 1ar time investment and technical proficiency, but i have no hesitancy voting for it. no ideological default in regards to norm-setting vs. potential abuse biz - debate it out! - i dislike disclosure/new affs bad theory (unless it’s mis-disclosure), but it can be used to bolster the necessity of limits / justify excessive condo / other neg shenanigans - don’t be afraid to go for theory against the abusive CP/neg strat/etc. - it can be just as viable a strat as substance

__ **//t//** __ - i don’t love these debates, but sometimes it needs to be “the option”, and i understand that - plz meet your own counterinterp… - does reasonability refer to the nature of the interp or the plan? make that clear plz - be hyper-technical please and we’ll be cool

__ **//da’s//** __ - generics are unstrategic because the AFF can easily win defense vis a vis appeals to specificity/link UQ. however, smart framing and/or a good CP can make them viable - it goes without saying, but specific DA’s are better for the same reasons - i default to UQ controlling the direction of the link - i can obvi be persuaded otherwise

__ **//cp’s//** __ - process cp’s are cool, and i’m not arbitrarily biased one way or the other - specific biz about pic’s: word pic’s are fine but happen to be very susceptible to theory, so be technically proficient. other pic’s are also fine - hyper-specific and well-researched ones are awesome - solvency advocates will make the theory debate very easy for the NEG. “must have a solvency advocate” theory is fine. is just a NB card (and no solvency advocate) ok? sure, but i’ll be biased towards smart 2ac analytical solvency defense