Chung,+Seungwon

Chung, Seungwon (Wake Forest University/Cathedral Prep/Lakeland) Number of TOURNAMENTS Judged (This Year's Topic): 1 Number of ROUNDS Judged (This Year's Topic): 7 I debated in high school at Lexington High and have just finished my third year of debate for Wake Forest. I will try to judge the debate the way you tell me to judge the debate. What follows are my dispositions which can change if debaters tell me to. Topicality – T is always a voting issue. It is never a reverse voter, genocidal, oppressive, racist or outweighed by theory. You win the T debate by winning that your standards are comparatively better than the other teams. It’s your job to weigh the standards. If you don’t I will do it for you and you will probably not be happy. Topicality is generally a debate of competing interpretations, although I am readily persuaded by the reasonability arguments. Kritiks – I believe that at the minimum the aff should get to weigh the world of the implemented plan against any competitive alternative. The neg should specify the actor of their alternative. Is it me? Is it the world? The aff should press them on it. The alt must have a text. Specific is more persuasive than generic. The alt should probably solve part of the case or have a very very good weighing mechanism to prevent you from losing on case outweighs. For the aff, your best arguments are usually the permutation and the lack of specificity of the kritik. Critical affs – you must defend the plan. If you don’t, you lose. Framing arguments such as ethics or risk calculus generally helps these affs – use them. The neg can never lose because they said nuclear war and you read a reps K if they don’t go for it. Theory – conditionality is best. Dispo is lame but acceptable. Unconditional CPs have the potential to be devastating but tend not to be. Multiple CPs are acceptable, but the aff generally gets leeway in answering ridiculous proliferation of CPs. International fiat is suspect. International fiat + US fiat is just ridiculous. Textual competition is laughable. Private, object and utopian fiat are probably cheating. Consultation and delay CPs are probably more uncompetitive than they are illegitimate. I reject the argument not the team. Conditionality note: the status quo must always remain a logical option. If the 2NR goes for a CP, case and a DA and the 2AR wins a DA to the CP – the aff can still lose on the DA outweighing the case. Perms need to include all of the plan. Intrinsic perms can sometimes use concessions such as the neg “search for the best policy” to justify themselves. Logic permutations are generally persuasive. Case and disad – offense/defense paradigm might be bankrupt, but tends to go unchallenged. When it does, the neg usually wins. Smart reasons why the DA turns the case are appreciated and very strategic. Controlling the link direction is more important than uniqueness. More teams should go for case and disad – it will lead to better points. Impact calculus – start it early and make it comparative. Systemic versus one-shot disads is an important debate. Magnitude vs. timeframe or magnitude vs. probability – have these debates or I will have them for you.