Kim,+Leo


 * Leo (Sung) Kim**
 * Harvard ‘17**
 * Katy Taylor ‘13**
 * hmu at leosjk07@gmail.com if u got questions thanks**

i will be @ the harvard tournament if you are going to the berkeley tournament this guy is the right Leo Kim: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Kim%2C+Leonardo (^ For the most part, if you're at a tournament in California, you should probably look at this paradigm. Sorry, that's the end of my intrusion [: )

prefer email chains; flashing doesn't count as prep unless it's egregious

if it helps - check out my wikis https://opencaselist15.paperlessdebate.com/Harvard/Kim-Borbon+Aff https://opencaselist15.paperlessdebate.com/Harvard/Kim-Borbon+Neg

__**Short Version**__ Hi. I debated at Katy Taylor and debated at Harvard for 3 years. I coached Katy Taylor Albert and Zaki (RIP sorry about osama aff), and also coached Katy Taylor's Spencer/Subbu and Patrick/Mohamed. I believe the best judges will listen to and adjudicate as impartially as possible any argument and style of debate. You should do whatever you are best at. **I don't think you should pref me based on any perceived ideological bias. My preference is for good arguments and interesting debates** **.** That being said, I try to leave out any biases or predispositions I may have and be a fair and attentive judge. YOU DO YOU. A new argument is one that could not have been predictably deduced from my understanding of its previous form. Also - I// will vote on an argument only if I can explain it to the other team. // This is an arbitrary standard, but it’s the best one I could come up with and it encourages you to communicate more so I’m ok with it.
 * I am very reluctant to vote on arguments made in the text of cards but not in the debate. If you think you have better evidence you should explain why.**


 * Clarity over Speed** – you can be the fastest debater in the world but it doesn’t matter if you are unclear and nobody can understand you. Speed is not how fast you can spout the words but how fast you can communicate the words. Emphasis and ethos = more speaker points. Also slow down in the T debate and theory debate.


 * Arguments – ** Arguments are arguments regardless of what form they take so do whatever you like to do and what you are best at. Don’t assume that I am familiar with the specific details of your disadvantage or that I am familiar with whatever critical literature you read. I just want a fun, well-flushed debate where everything is explained well and why it matters to me in the debate round.


 * Ethics ** - don’t cheat, don’t lie, don’t be rude, don’t say messed up things, don't clip obviously. There is a line between sassy/funny and being an ignorant asshole.

If you have any questions, definitely feel free to ask before the round!

Be smart. Be funny. Relax. This will help your speaks. Have fun!

**+0.5 speaks to the team that uses less than one min of prep and wins**

__**Specifics (if u rly care that much I guess)**__ I understand that my short version isn't very helpful for people looking for very specific stuff, so I'll write stuff out.


 * Clarity over Speed** – you can be the fastest debater in the world but it doesn’t matter if you are unclear and nobody can understand you. Speed is not how fast you can spout the words but how fast you can communicate the words. Emphasis and ethos = more speaker points. Also slow down in the T debate and theory debate.


 * CX – ** a lot of debates can be won in cross-x and a good cross-x can be very devastating and very positive for speaker points (or negative if you seem like you have no idea what you are talking about). Win links to your stuff in cross-x, win no-links to their stuff in cross-x, etc. I will listen to cross-x.

**Arguments -** Arguments are arguments regardless of what form they take so do whatever you like to do and what you are best at. Don’t assume that I am familiar with the specific details of your disadvantage or that I am familiar with whatever critical literature you read. I just want a fun, well-flushed debate where everything is explained well and why it matters to me in the debate round. I was as comfortable taking the deterrence DA in the 1NR as I was taking the Metaphysics of Presence K - so don't pref me based on what you think is an ideological bias.


 * Kritiks and the like** - Ks are cool. I did a lot of K stuff in high school, and still do a lot of K stuff in college. My academic interest (beyond statistics and stuff) are in security studies and IR. Things I don't like when judging K debates: buzzwords thrown around without unpacking them or explaining their significance, not engaging with the aff, assuming I know the lit, trying too hard to be BoSu or Mich KM but executing poorly, lack of alternative explanation in the 2NR, no external impact. Things I do like when judging K debates: specific analysis, sass, showing off your knowledge, K tricks, smart CX strategies to set up the K, cool explanations in the 2NR of how the K solves the case, good impact calculus.


 * K Affs** - Also cool. I don't believe that there is a necessity for a plan text but I do wish the affirmative is in the direction of the topic, or at least about the topic. That said, if you can robustly defend your method/the important of your advocacy, sure go for it.


 * Framework:** Framework debates, to me, are essentially debates over competing visions of debate and methods. Impact calculus please. "Destroys fairness" isn't an impact - why does fairness matter? What's the impact to fairness or why is switch-side debate good? what makes the neg's model of debate better than the aff's model of debate? why is the aff's model of debate good?


 * Disadvantages - ** I like timely/specific DA's. I like politics. I like DA's. I don't know what else to say here. Good specific analysis of turns case and impact calculus = higher speaker points. Also I am not afraid to vote on no risk of the disad. Oh, btw, not a big fan of rider DAs but whatever I'll vote for it if you win it.


 * Counterplans - ** I think plan plus counterplans are solved by perm do both. I like really tricky PICs. I usually err neg on theory questions such as PICs bad, bad, etc, but they can definitely be won in front of me. However, I don’t want the 2AR to be PICs bad. Just engage with the substance yo. Also, if your CP has like 10 planks and you say you can kick planks, I'm more likely to be aff-leaning on theory args that I usually lean neg on (like condo). #DontBringConsultJapanBack


 * T/Theory: ** [copied and pasted from my roommate **Madhu Vijay'**s philosphy aka **MadDog Madhu**] The team that wins the tech will win my ballot, regardless of the underlying argument's quality. (Of course, it's harder to make a compelling, technically sound case for something like no neg fiat.) Impact calculus is absolutely vital and underutilized. My substantive preferences aren't very relevant -- I will say that in general, the closer a CP is to the plan and the less specific differentiating evidence the neg has, the less likely I will be to believe it's competitive/legitimate. That is a very loose preference, and tech >>>>>>>> vague predispositions here. I tend to default to competing interpretations because reasonability is often debated vaguely/poorly by aff teams; if you can do otherwise, do so. As every judge says, theory/T are like DA's; you should debate them as such, and I will judge them as such. A caveat is that if you do things like not meeting your own interpretation, you'll probably lose. tbh i don't like judging theory debates because it's often done poorly

Also, I generally default to competing interps but can be persuaded otherwise (This is just the position i start out with in the debate - if you can win a disad to this preference then I will view the debate through a lens of reasonability and the same the other way). Topicality is generally a voting issue. T doesn’t cause genocide, but certain impact turns to T can be persuasive.


 * Case – ** woefully underused part of the debate. These arguments can be so strategic and when used creatively, they can be one of the most important parts of the debate. I’m not talking only defense claims like ECONOMIC COLLAPSE =/= EXTINCTION, but also impact turns and straight turns to their scenarios. Those are coolio. A well-done and well-engaged case debate = more speaker points. Smart cross-applications on either side = more speaker points.

Aff-leaning on: Consults/Conditions, A-Spec (lol) Neg-leaning on: Conditionality (to a certain extent), PICs bad (unless it's super abusive), Dispo
 * Some self-perceived theory bias: **


 * Ethics ** - don’t cheat, don’t lie, don’t be rude, don’t say messed up things. There is a line between sassy/funny and being an ignorant asshole. I’m fine with cursing in round if done correctly/appropriately/moderately.

If you have any questions, definitely feel free to ask before the round!

Be smart. Be funny. Relax. This will help your speaks. Have fun!

errr... if it matters, people who have really influenced me in my debate career at harvard so far (in no particular order): patrick kennedy, lundberg, mathew petersen, bradley bolman, yung michael suo