Johng,Kenny

Kenny Johng Updated 2/12/2016 I debated for 4 years at Grapevine High School I debated my first semester for UC Berkeley

Some short points if you’re in a rush pre-round and don’t have time to read everything:
 * What’s on your (and your opponent’s) flow/computer =/= what’s on my flow/computer. Clearly communicated arguments from you to me = what’s on my flow/computer
 * I judged 5 rounds on this topic and have no prior knowledge of it. Keep this in mind when making arguments pertinent to topicality or counterplan competition.
 * Flashing doesn’t count for prep unless I start to think you’re stealing prep. In which case it does count for prep and your speaker points will suffer.
 * Tech over truth most of the time
 * Please keep track of your prep time
 * Slow down when reading counterplan/plan texts

Meta: I think that debate is an activity where communication skills are important. I understand/appreciate the long hours that y’all have probably put into cutting cards, writing blocks, producing files, etc; but that has no relevance to me unless you are able to effectively communicate what you have prepared. I am your judge, not someone who copies what’s on your computer/flow to my flow. If you think an argument is important, make sure to communicate that to me instead of unclearly spewing nonsense from your computer because chances are that I wont be able to flow it as well as you would like me to.

Additionally, I think debate should be a safe space. Be cognizant of the words that you say as your experiences might not be the same as your opponents/partner/judges. Your framework link should not be “personal experiences shouldn’t have a place in debate.” I think it’s important to understand that there are a lot of debaters who truly believe in the arguments they present in the round as it means something to them. Please respect that.

Concerning this year’s resolution: The last time I debate was last fall (2014) on the college legalization topic. I judged no rounds on last year’s high school ocean topic and 5 on this year’s surveillance topic. This means that I’m not going to understand your acronyms or slang/buzzwords that are specific to this topic. For all I know WPA stands for Wi-Fi Protected Access, not the Whistleblower Protection Act (that’s the only acronym I’m familiar with btw). This is also relevant in topicality/counterplan competition debates. I’m not familiar with the topicality literature nor what the “common/core affs” are on this topic. So you reading off a bunch of affs that are “non topical” that the other team’s interpretation justifies probably means nothing to me.

Speaker points: Things that you will be rewarded for: making smart, well researched arguments, making strategic in-round decisions, politeness to the other team and your partner, clarity/organization on the flow, humor Things you will be punished for: making/saying morally repugnant things, lack of clarity/organization in the flow, being rude to the other team and/or your partner, stealing prep

That being said, here are some of my preferences for the different “kinds” of arguments in debate:

Topicality/theory: Please don’t let my previous disclaimer make you shy away from these debates. I like debates about debate. I think that the aff is in a better position if they win offense on this flow. That being said, I think topicality debates can definitely be won by the aff with a simple/good “we meet” argument. This is why I believe evidence quality on these debates are important. I tend to evaluate a T debate very similarly as to how I evaluate a Cp/da debate. Examples of this include: I don’t think all definitions/interpretations are mutually exclusive and thus a permutation is possible, Your interpretation must be able to resolve your own offense/standards at the bare minimum. On the topic of theoretical arguments, I think saying “reject the argument, not the team” makes sense to me unless argued otherwise.
 * I’ve noticed that a lot of debaters tend to hit hyperspace when they are explaining their standards so please don’t do that.

Disads: I don’t think “try-or-die” framing makes sense unless you have a specific reason why voting for you is able to mitigate your impacts. This also applies to case advantages.

Cp: I think that knowing what the counterplan actually does is important in the debate. This means it is in your best interest to SLOW DOWN when reading the counterplan text. I tend to find myself really confused when the negative stands up in the block and reads 30 cards on the counterplan with no explanation of what it actually does. I was a 2a in my latter parts of my debate career so I tend to be more sympathetic to the aff when there is a generic consult/conditions counterplan being read in the round but don’t let that deter you from reading this sort of argument. I’m not a fan of poorly thought out permutation arguments. So just because the negative answered your “perm do both” but not your “perm do the plan and the counterplan” does not automatically mean a neg ballot.

Kritiks: With the exception of Virilio (I went for this a lot) and Neolib, I didn’t read a lot of kritiks. That being said, I find myself voting for the kritik quite often. I would say that link analysis/explanation is really important to me. And when I say link analysis I mean explaining, in a language I can understand, how your argument is related to the other team’s arguments/endorsements. I do not mean using a bunch of jargon and saying “the aff” in a singular sentence. I’m not very knowledgeable on high theory arguments and therefore will need a simplified explanation of these sorts of arguments. Feel free to ask me pre-round about how much I know about certain critical arguments you are thnking of reading in the round