Choi,+Jonathan


 * Last Updated:** 11/24/2012 before the Princeton Classic


 * History**: I was a policy debater for 3 years at Glenbrook South and a coach for 1. I am currently at Princeton University.

LD Paradigm

 * Prima Facie Concern:** If you are not respectful in a round (whether it is to me or to your opponent), I will not hesitate to take it out on speaker points. I understand light-hearted heckling, but I do not tolerate disrespect. Debate is competitive, but it is still an honorable activity.

Also, my history is in policy debate, not LD. I will not be as quick on the jargon as you are, but I understand how a debate should function.


 * The Other Stuff:**
 * Speed**: It's been a while, but I am fundamentally a policy debater and I can deal with faster than normal talking. That being said, if it's too fast I will yell clear or ask you to slow down. Also, if you're not a speed debater and we get into a theory debate, I am more than willing to vote on theory - just give me good reasons and be prepared to invest time. Slow down on tags and make them clear.


 * Theory:** I will not know all of your LD theory terms - if they are at all about grounds, predictability, fairness, reasonability, education then I can follow you.

There's nothing worse than a bad theory debate. If the Neg spends less than 15 seconds on T or Theory in their NC, I'm not voting on it. As the aff, go to the flow, give me 10 seconds of why blippy theory is bad for debate and contributes to time skew, and move on. If the Neg spends a larger chunk of time on T or Theory, I think it's worth answering. Use your best judgment, but know that I err aff on theory.

RVIs are stupid. I will do everything I can to not vote on them. If they are using it as a blatant time suck, I will be hard pressed to vote neg later anyway.


 * Evidence**: I come from policy land. Don't be afraid to give me a lot of it.


 * Counterplans**: Once again, I come from policy land. Counterplans are okay as long as they are competitive. If the Aff doesn't offer a plan and doesn't specifically say they advocate the entirety of the resolution, don't PIC out of something tiny, claim a net benefit from there and then run around. If the Aff defends that we, in general, should order a pizza and you say counterplan, we should order a pizza but not from Papa John's because the owners a conservative I will then turn to the aff and expect him to say that that isn't competitive.


 * Kritiks**: Discourse kritiks are annoying and I find that they generally don't have an impact. Be ready to be good on that framework/theory/perm debate or I will vote aff in a heart beat. That being said, I enjoy listening to good K debate so long as it is specific. Agamben's state of exception, Foucault's biopower, Cap bad - all of these arguments have potential in front of me, but only if you can specifically link them to the other team's advocacy/discourse. If you get up there and read your generic blocks, I will find your arguments hard to believe.


 * Impact Calculus**: I'm lazy and don't feel like doing work for you. If you give me a good, clear impact calculus at the end, I will love you. It makes my job easier, makes your job easier. Use plenty of even-if statements so that if I believe you lost an argument, I have something else to look at.


 * Last bit**: Have fun, ask questions before the round if you still have 'em, don't be a jerk to your opponent.