Ahn,+Steve

Experience/Debate Career: Westminster Schools of Atlanta, varsity policy debate (1983-1987), Emory Univ. Barkley Forum, policy debate (1987-1988). Current profession: Adjunct professor and consultant in the area of financial management and training & education. In my profession, the debate-related topics I specialize in include expert witness testimony, legal doc review, debate/argumentation, negotiations, public speaking, analytical case presentations, research, economics, and technical interviewing.

Speed: Any speed is fine as long as you are comprehensible – that includes tags, cites, and all ev. Don’t just enunciate the tag & cite, then incomprehensibly spread the ev. You should always sign-post and look for my feedback.

Speaker points/ranks: I weigh the characteristics of what I consider to be an exemplary debater – namely, delivery technique and analytical acumen – throughout the entire debate, which includes cross-x.. I evaluate all speaker positions equally. Anything that may be considered intentionally disrespectful or detrimental to the educational and fair competitive value of debate – for example, uncooperative answers in cross-x, profanity, eating while speaking – will be taken into account. Although I allow insides, communication between teammates, tag-teaming, or an excessive amount of speaking for a teammate will negatively affect speaker points for the person who is being spoken for and not positively affect the one speaking. For example, if the 2N answers question after question for the 1N being cross-x’ed, the 1N will lose speaker points and the 2N will not gain speaker points. As another example, the 2A telling the 1AR in the middle of the 1AR speech “Don’t forget to argue…” is fine, but the 2A continuously guiding the 1AR throughout the speech would negatively affect 1A and not positively affect 2A.

Paradigm: Anything goes - I’m a tab judge by default and ultimately decide based on whether or not there is a net benefit to doing the affirmative case over the status quo or a counterplan. As far as the types of arguments I will consider – anything is fair game (as in “game” paradigm.) If there is an argument made within the debate for me to use a different paradigm, I will use the paradigm that is best argued for. For example, in the case of counterplans or pmn’s expanded into counterplans, I will use the hypo-testing paradigm if it is introduced and debated. I’ll even use the lay judge paradigm if you argue for it. Anything but a heads-or-tails paradigm as long as it is within the educational and fair value of debate.

Topicality: T is the only time where I will decide on a round based on a single stock issue independent of net benefits. Neg must impact T as I apply a “reasonable limits precedent to preserve the educational value of debate” standard.

Cross-x: I do not flow cross-x, nor do I use any of the content of cross-x for my rfd. Only arguments made in the speeches are evaluated when I make my judgment. I do however consider cross-x answers binding and allow arguments to be made in speeches based on answers in cross-x. For example, if Aff grants a disad link in cross-x, neg can just state that the disad link was granted in cross-x and move on.

Fair play / Educational value of debate: I am a traditionalist when it comes to preserving the educational value of the great activity that debate is; therefore, any actions that might be considered contrary to such will be heavily penalized in speaker points and in the rfd. Examples include fabbing ev, being evasive or hostile in cross-x, failing to show ev that was read in a speech to the other team upon request, calling another debater’s argument “stupid”, attempting to introduce new arguments in rebuttals, lying about a dropped argument not being dropped, or using profanity. I do not consider running an Aff squirrel, doing 2NC dumps, or running multiple counterplans under a hypo-testing paradigm in 2NC (to name a few examples) as detrimental or unfair. I do not allow a debater to rescind or drop his/her argument if it has been granted (for example, in the case of double turns.) Though I may request to read ev at the end of the round, I will not read ev if it has not been read in the speech. Any part of ev that was not finished being read in a speech will not be considered in the debate.

Timing: I will keep track of all times including prep time, unless there is a volunteer whom I approve of. I will verbally call out whole minutes remaining while continuously holding up fingers of the last whole minute called out starting from three minutes remaining, to two to one; at half a minute remaining, I will hold up a “bent finger”; at the quarter I will hold up a “finger pinch”, and at zero – I will stop flowing and call time, but you may complete the sentence you are in the middle of. You may not complete any ev you are in the middle of reading. If a team/speaker is out of prep time, speech time begins regardless of when the speech is actually started. Restroom breaks, “computer problems”, etc. are counted within prep time.