Kim,+Thomas

=__Introduction __=

toc Hey all! My name is Thomas (Ik-Hyun) Kim and I currently compete in Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate as an independent representing Vincentian Academy (Class of 2018). If you are here, I presume that you are within one of the following categories:


 * If you are a debater and I happen to compete in the same tournament as you, I am Vincentian Academy (Independent) TK. You probably would rather want to go to my NDCA hsld wiki page (Vincentian Academy (Independent) TK) for things that are more useful for you (disclosure, etc.).
 * If you are a debater and you are debating in a tournament where I am judging in (I judge mostly in the local/regional circuit, but I do have a state/national circuit paradigm) then I highly recommend that you read the rest of this paradigm.

Still here? Great, now let me tell you about what I like and don't like. This may get to be pretty long (in the future) so I hope you have the time and patience to bear with me.

=__Traditional/Lay LD Debate Paradigm (Local/Regional Circuit) __=

//Part I: Etiquette //
If you are in the local/regional circuit, I pretty much expect that you and your opponent are going to engage in what is generally called "traditional" or "lay" debate. If so, I have a few things that I want to note which will make me happy and unhappy (along with their respective consequences) when it comes to things about the round in general (disregarding the content of your arguments).


 * 1) **__Be respectful:__** Above all things, please be respectful to your opponent. If at any point in the round I hear an insult thrown an argument or at the opponent directly in any form (verbal, physical, etc.) from either side, I will do one of the following.
 * __Drop you immediately:__ If I feel that the form of insult that you did was just downright bad (as in enough for me to think WTF) then I will immediately drop you. You will be able to tell if I do this by seeing that I close my laptop or drop my pen to stop flowing. Even more so, I will probably be staring at you in a very angry way. I don't care if you were the best debater at the tournament. In my eyes, someone who disrespects a person who gave up their time to engage in this activity is NOT a good debater at all. Expect speaks that are what your speaks would have been cut in half at the most. Also, you should expect for me to want to see you after round to talk about your behavior. I will also probably report this to tab and or your coach/captain.
 * __Cut your speaks severely:__ If I feel that the form of insult that you did was bad, but not so bad that I felt that it was either unintentional or a failed attempt at displaying dominance, then I will cut your speaker points accordingly. I will cut no less than 4 and no more than 8 from what you could have gotten. I will continue to flow, and I will do my best to not consider what you did against you, but don't expect to win. Also, you should expect for me to want to see you after round to talk about your behavior.
 * 1) **__Humor me:__** Now I know that I sound really weird with that phrase so let me clarify. I personally don't tend to debate in the local/regional circuit often. As such, I am more used to spreading and progressive debate in general. I am not trying to say that traditional or lay debate is bad. However, be warned that I would like for you to make the round amusing or interesting to listen to. I hate boring, slow rounds and I tend to lose focus in those rounds. So here are some things that I think you should consider doing in front of me.
 * __Be REASONABLY sassy: __ I think it's funny and good to be a little bit sassy in the round to show dominance or just that you have $wag. That said, I am all about $wag. If you have $wag, then I will like you a lot. More importantly, I find that debaters who can show a reasonable amount of sass are the ones who know what they are talking about. If you properly show a reasonable amount of sass then I will boost your speaks by 1 point.
 * __Make jokes:__ I love debate jokes (call me a geek if you wish). Bring in all the debate jokes that are applicable in the round, but not so many such that your opponent or I will get completely distracted from the round itself. If you do this properly, then I will boost your speaks by 1 point.

//Part II: Constructives //

 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**__Good frameworks are strong:__** I love a good solid framework. The framework is the foundation upon which your case is built upon. If you don't have a strong framework, just like a building with a weak foundation, your case will crumble very easily. I am fine if you justify morality by saying "since ought implies a moral obligation" or something along the lines of that. However, I expect at least 1 card for justifying the value otherwise, and at least 2 cards for justifying the value criterion/standard. I don't expect you to explicitly say why the value and the value criterion/standard have a link, but I do expect that I can see the internal link or that if the opponent asks you in CX, that you can clarify.
 * 2) __**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Good contentions are like a river: **__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Your contentions are supposed to be reasons why we have a greater moral obligation to affirm or negate with respect to your value. If you want these to be strong, I should see that your contentions are like a river. They should have layers of logic that make your argument like a complete, flowing river that doesn't have some giant chasm in the middle of it. However, don't forget that I should be able to at least see an internal link between the contention and the framework. No river just spontaneously starts, they always have a source of water.
 * 3) __**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Speed is fine, but be open to ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">the **__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**__situation:__** Let's be honest here that this is supposed to be a lay/traditional debate. I really don't expect spreading, or anything close to it, from you guys, but if you want to spread or talk fast, then ask the opponent before round. If he/she says no then I will expect that you adjust accordingly. If for some reason you can't (For example, you only wrote one case which requires spreading to finish it and every part is necessary) then I expect for you to at least let the opponent see a printed copy of the case, e-mail, or use a flash drive to give it to them. LOOKING OVER THE SHOULDER OR JUST SHOWING DURING PREP IS NOT OK. I WILL DEDUCT 5 SPEAKS IF YOU DON'T GIVE A PRINTED COPY, E-MAIL, OR FLASH. If the opponent is a person who is completely new to the event, or is a novice, I expect that you don't spread under any circumstances. If you do spread in front of a newbie or novice, your speaks will drop by no less than 3 and no more than 6 from what you would have gotten.
 * 4) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**__Plans/CP's are cool, but please be cautious:__** To be completely honest, plans/CP's shouldn't be run on the aff/neg when you are on the traditional/lay level. However, I personally love LARPing, and running specific advocacies. I think it's is fair for the aff/neg to run plans/CP's, and that they should be used often in debate that is beyond traditional/lay. However, again please be cautious of the situation if you are still going to run a plan. If you are facing a person who is a newbie or a novice, then I expect you to run a general res case (definding the resolution as a general principle). If you run a plan in front of a novice or newbie, I will drop your speaks by no less than 2 and no more than 4 from what you would have gotten. Furthermore, I will ignore the plan, and pretend that the advantages are your "contentions" (unless they I don't see a link between your framework and the advantage). Therefore, the general rule with LARPing at lay/traditional tournaments is that BOTH DEBATERS OUGHT TO AGREE BEFORE ROUND IN RUNNING PLANS/CP's AND I MUST KNOW BEFORE THE FIRST SPEECH IS GIVEN THAT YOU BOTH GAVE CONSENT.
 * 5) **__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">T/Meta-Theory/Theory/K's/DisAds (DA's) are awesome but out of the question: __**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> This title explains well what I find about off-case arguments in terms of lay/traditional debate. If I am your judge in a traditional/lay tournament never run an off-case argument, especially in front of novices/newbies. If you run an off-case argument in front of anyone, I will drop your speaks by no less than 3 and no more than 6. The only time I will make an exception to this is if both debaters agree before the first speech starts and I am notified of this by either one of you (I will confirm with the other person). Don't waste time and a question in CX just to see if you can run an off-case argument. I will not flow anything that hasn't been agreed upon by both debaters before the round.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Part III: Technical Considerations with Speeches //

 * 1) <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">**__Speak clearly:__** This is self-explanatory. You must slow down for taglines and author names. If I don't hear them the first time, I will not flow it and assume that it never existed unless the opponent brings it up. If the opponent brings the unheard card up for a rebuttal speech, then I expect that you let me see your case at the end of the round so I can confirm that it initially did exist and to see if the opponent made the proper claims against it.
 * 2) <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">**__Make turns instead of blocks:__** The one thing that, in my opinion, should be considered one of the most important steps in becoming a great debater is learning how to make turns. Most people think that they made a "turn" when in really they made a block. Turns are offense, and can win you the round. Blocks are defensive and thus cannot win you the round. Turns make me very happy (especially if they are well-developed. That said, don't make BS turns with short blippy justifications. I will not flow them). Blocks are fine, but you can't win with only blocks.
 * 3) <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">__**Weigh...A LOT:**__ I feel like weighing impacts (whatever form of impacts they may be) is key in allowing for the judge to easily see who won the round. The biggest flaw in most lay/traditional debaters is that they talk about the flaws in the opponent's argument but never actually weigh impacts. I find it more important that you weigh impacts and show that "even if his arg is true mine outweighs because __(insert hopefully not BS logical reason)__." Weigh well, and I will be very happy and perhaps will boost your speaks by no less than 1 and no more than 3 points.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14.3px;">Part IV: Ethics of the Round (IMPORTANT) //
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">If either debater believes there is an ethical problem of the round/debater (miscut card, lying, etc.) then I will allow for an ethics challenge. Per debater, I will allow for a maximum of 2 challenges per round (I'm being very generous here, as most other judges only allow for one challenge). However, if the tournament as a whole is too far back behind schedule to afford 2 ethics challenge I will cut that to, at minimum, 1 ethics challenge allowed in the whole round (I will let both debaters know before the round starts). In the case that you find an ethics challenge but weren't able to bring it up because of this change, you are allowed to notify me IMMEDIATELY after the round is over. If the challenge is a success (as in there was an issue), then that will conclude the round. The winner of the challenge will automatically win the round and get speaks based off of their performance throughout the round up to that point + 1. The loser of the challenge will automatically lose the round, get 0 speaks, and get reported to tab and their coach(es). If the challenge was a failure (as in there was no ethical issue) then we will just continue the round. If you use up both of your challenges and both failed to show an ethical issue then I will deduct 2 speaks from what you would have gotten and you really shouldn't expect to win. Don't be afraid to give an ethics challenge. If you want to give a challenge, either stand up and ask (repeatedly) to stop the round for an ethics challenge or slam on the desk multiple times until you get my attention.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">//Part V: Judge-Debater Relationship//

 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">__**Card Cutting:**__ I read up a LOT on the topic (as you may imagine since I am an active debater). So I probably read the articles/authors that you are reading and can pull them up on my laptop as necessary even if I forget. I believe that debaters are to be fair and honest about what they read, therefore I reserve the right to cut your speaks or just drop you completely if you miscut a card, make up a card, etc. (I will not let you know until after the round is over that you miscut)  I understand that for novices, that it may be a mistake so I will be a bit more lenient, but please don't do that kind of unjust BS.
 * 2) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**__Disclosure:__** I expect you to stay behind for a little bit (no more than 10 minutes) as I will give a brief RFD and disclosure. I don't really care if the tournament directors say that judges can't disclose since I still will ( <span style="color: #0047ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">#rebel <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">). Note: I will not have written down speaks until after the end of the full disclosure. Therefore, your attitude even afterwards during the disclosure can affect your speaks. I will boost your speaks by no less than 1 and no more than 2 if you take notes during the disclosure when I am addressing you. I will cut your speaks by no less than 1 and no more than 2 if you show a sign of rudeness, arrogance, etc. in front of me at anytime during the disclosure.
 * 3) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**__Search for help, don't expect for me to find you:__** If you can't understand something about how the round was determined, content of the round (the opponent brought up a unique argument/framework), etc. you can find me. I will try my best to explain what happened in the round that led up to my decision and or explain the content of the opponent's arguments/framework that may be confusing. Don't expect me to search for you and try to help you.
 * 4) <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">__**Default Speaks:**__ I default to 28 speaks as the starting point and it will go up and down from there. What you get reflects how I determine you executed your duties as a debaters and the potential you have (the latter having a smaller effect on what you get). I allow for low point wins, unless the tournament strictly prohibits them.
 * 5) <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">__**Inflating Speaks:**__ I will shamelessly inflate your speaks by 1-2 points if you bring me a snack or a drink (1 for each item). However, this is first come, first serve so if one of you already brought me a water bottle, the opponent cannot get an inflation for bringing a water bottle as well. Creds go to Nathan Cha for this policy to which I have taken a liking to.

=__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Beyond Traditional/Lay LD Debate Paradigm (National Circuit) __=

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Part I: Etiquette //
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Same as the **//"Part I: Etiquette"//** in the Traditional/Lay LD Debate Paradigm.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Part II: Constructives: //

 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**__Good frameworks are strong:__** Same as **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> "Good frameworks are strong" **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> in the Traditional/Lay LD Debate Paradigm
 * 2) __**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Good contentions are like a river: **__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Same as **"Good contentions are like a river"** in the Traditional/Lay LD Debate Paradigm
 * 3) __**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Speed is fine, but be open to ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">the **__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**__situation:__** I am fine with practically any speed as long as you are clear and slow down on tags/authors. However (due to the fact that you may be hitting someone who is very uncomfortable with spreading) if you want to spread or talk fast, then ask the opponent before round. If he/she says no then I will expect that you adjust accordingly. If for some reason you can't (For example, you only wrote one case which requires spreading to finish it and ever y part is necessary) then I expect for you to at least let the opponent see a printed copy of the case, e-mail, or use a flash drive to give it to them. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">LOOKING OVER THE SHOULDER OR JUST SHOWING DURING PREP IS NOT OK. I WILL DEDUCT 5 SPEAKS IF YOU DON'T GIVE A PRINTED COPY, E-MAIL, OR FLASH.  If the opponent is a person who is completely new to the event, or is a novice, I expect that you don't spread under any circumstances. If you do spread in front of a newbie or novice, your speaks will drop by no less than 3 and no more than 6 from what you would have gotten.
 * 4) __**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">LARPing and Off-Case: **__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> I am a huge fan of specific advocacies and off-case arguments. Please make them, as they pique my interest and will make me more engaged with the round in general. I just want to emphasize that you must be especially clear with these types of arguments. I also must be able to clearly understand the links made for DA's and K's. If I don't see the link as adequate, then I will look at you awkwardly and or just not flow the whole DA/K (and that would be bad). Your flow of logic to why the impacts exist and what not must be clear though. If I don't understand it the first time, I won't write it down. Be careful with NIBs as I am not a fan of them (to be nice). I will flow them and will vote for them if you can properly defend it against whatever may come at it. I think PICs are cool (I am a fan of these) but again, be careful as you may get shot down by theory.
 * 5) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">__**T/Meta-Theory/Theory:**__ I love T-shells, and I do also (somewhat) like Theory as well. However I do believe that these must be used only for checking abuse/extra-T/NIB. If the abuse/extra-T/NIB situation does indeed exist then I will flow this. If it doesn't, I will flow but will stare at you in a very awkward way. I WILL ONLY VOTE ON THEORY THAT IS USED FOR AN ABUSE CHECK. I must hear a clear interp or else I will not flow the theory debate at all and thus it will be disregarded in the round. I will not ask for interps at all. I prefer that counter-interps are read against interps but you can do what you want. NEVER RUN FRIVOLOUS THEORY. RUNNING FRIVOLOUS THEORY IS THE EASIEST WAY OF LOSING 4+ SPEAKS. I WILL NEVER VOTE OFF OF FRIVOLOUS THEORY. I have a VERY LOW threshold for arguments made against frivolous theory. I don't default Meta-Theory > Theory as I am a person who doesn't believe that there exists such a hierarchy for arguments unless it is justified (and stays justified). I expect you to be extremely clear and clean-cut when making any form of these arguments. I don't care about what format the arguments are, but make sure you are extra-clear if on the interp and each individual standard and voter if you run paragraph theory.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Part III: Technical Considerations with Speeches //
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Same as "**//Part III: Technical Considerations with Speeches//**" in the Traditional/Lay LD Debate Paradigm.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">//Part IV: Ethics of the Round (IMPORTANT)//
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Same as "**//Part IV: Ethics of the Round (IMPORTANT)//**" in the Traditional/Lay LD Debate Paradigm.

//**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Part V: Judge-Debater Relationship **//

 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">__**Card Cutting:**__ I read up a LOT on the topic (as you may imagine since I am an active debater). So I probably read the articles/authors that you are reading and can pull them up on my laptop as necessary even if I forget. I believe that debaters are to be fair and honest about what they read, therefore I reserve the right to **drop you completely, give 0 speaks and report you if you miscut a card, make up a card, etc.** (I will not let you know until after the round is over that you miscut. Miscutting is one thing that really doesn't require an ethics challenge). Furthermore, expect that I may start to dislike you a LOT (as in my judging will become MUCH more strict in future tournaments where you meet me) and it will take a while until you regain my trust as a debater or even just as a person.
 * 2) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**__Disclosure:__** Same as **"Disclosure"** in the Lay/Traditional Debate Paradigm
 * 3) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**__Search for help, don't expect for me to find you:__** Same as **"Search for help, don't expect me to find you"** in the Lay/Traditional Debate Paradigm.
 * 4) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">__**Default Speaks:**__ I default to 28 speaks (aren't I a nice guy?) as the starting point and it will go up and down from there. Low point wins are possible, unless the tournament strictly doesn't allow for it (I mentioned this in my Traditional/Lay LD Debate Paradigm). What you get reflects how I determine you executed your duties as a debaters and the potential you have (the latter having a smaller effect on what you get). If you want to see more specific criteria, read the speaker point guidelines on my mother's page: Rinnah Kim (but disregard her starting point since she starts at 27).
 * 5) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">__**Inflating Speaks:**__ Same as **"Inflating Speaks"** in the Lay/Traditional Debate Paradigm

=__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Other Paradigms to Read __=

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">I highly recommend that you look at the following paradigms (of some friends and mentors) if you want to get a better idea of how I may judge specific things:
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Martin Sigalow
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Benjamin Koh
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Nathan Cha
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Jacob Nails
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Frederick Ditzian
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Adam Tomasi
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Tom Kadie
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Anne-Marie Hwang
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Caroyln Lau
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Jacob Nebel

=__**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Conclusion **__=

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">At the end of the day, the most important thing is to have fun while being fair and keeping the educational value of each round. I hope that this helped, and I again give thanks for reading through all of this and being so patient. If you think I am boring, strict, etc. after reading this then you are WRONG! I love to have fun and would love to meet you so if you ever see me at a tournament, please come up to me and let's be friends! I hope to be able to judge you and or debate against you!

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">Best, <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">T.Kim

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">Last updated: 05/20/2016