Hsun,+Kim

I debated for Winston Churchill High school in San Antonio, Texas for four years, qualifying for TFA, UIL, and NSDA nationals in both LD and DX. I now attend the University of Texas at Austin, and I taught at VBI in 2016 and 2017. My paradigm is similar to Cameron McConway’s—oops.

I would rather see debaters do what they are good at than watch debaters read bad positions they think I would enjoy. As long as your arguments are not offensive, I am willing to listen to and evaluate anything. I feel more comfortable evaluating LARP, K, and T debates than theory, tricks or phil. Was a K debater, but you must explain your alt well and not rely on generics/root cause claims if you want to read kritical arguments in front of me. I’m good with speed, I will yell clear, slow, or loud and I do not mind if you sit or stand. Speaks will average around 28--- you will receive bonus points if you have an interesting position that you explain well, and lose speaks if you’re rude or say something offensive/if i have to yell at you more than three times. I default comparative worlds over truth testing, and you can contest that but I really have no idea what truth testing is still. I default competing interps, and am good with reasonability/RVI justifications.
 * The TLDR;**

Speed is fine, but slow down for tags/advocacies/plan texts/interps. I will yell clear and slow a few times, but if I have to yell it more than 3 times your speaks will go down and I may stop flowing. (I’m very expressive, so you’ll notice if you look up). Please share your case that you're reading with your opponent if you are going fast (even if they don't ask).
 * Speed:**

I’m from Texas, so I like util debate. Disads, counterplans, plans—all that is good with me. Absent impact comparisons I find shorter link chains with small impacts more persuasive and just more generally interesting. You’re welcome to read your extinction impacts but I have a lower threshold for responses the longer and more intricate the link chain. Weighing is extremely important (as always) so don’t forget to do it. Nothing is worse than having a bunch of impacts with no comparison on either side—give me a way out. Also, perms are tests of competition, not an advocacy.
 * LARP:**

I was known as a K debater, but I will honestly be harsher evaluating K arguments because I think K debate is kind of going downhill with badly warranted/written K’s that only work out because they have root cause claims or ROBs that are terribly explained but somehow come before/solve. I would rather see you do a good job reading what you usually read than a terrible, generic K that you barely understand. I’m not really familiar with postmodern philosophy (read a little bit of it, but not much) and will hold you to the same threshold for explaining your alternative and link. If you’re going to read Wilderson, don’t butcher it (especially if you’re white. I feel perfectly okay evaluating white people shouldn’t read Wilderson arguments). Do not assume I have background knowledge on your NC, and do a combination of line by line and overviews if you want to be particularly persuasive. I love critical affirmatives but I'm also persuaded by framework (T and theory) and cede the political style arguments against them.. Please explain the alternative well, be clear about a floating PIK in the NC, and don’t rely on root cause claims to win the round.
 * Ks:**

Slow down and make warranted arguments. Contrary to popular belief I enjoy good theory and T debates (and I’m totally cool with you reading it strategically), but I think debaters have a tendency to blaze through unwarranted analytics and it makes these rounds difficult to evaluate. I definitely prefer T to theory, and enjoy evidence comparison under T definitions. Also, don’t be afraid to read T against a K aff--- I think I’ve voted more (and agreed with decisions that voted) non-topical affs down on T than up.
 * T/Theory:**

- I default drop the argument and competing interpretations but if I have to default to anything on theory I will be sad. - I am willing to listen to reasonability claims and think reasonability is an underutilized strategy. - I am more persuaded by RVI claims under competing interpretations than reasonability. - I think fairness is an internal link to education—take that as you will.

I’m going to be blunt—I’m not very good at evaluating heavy framework debate. I always read structural violence type arguments, and I understand/can easily evaluate abstraction bad arguments in context of oppression. I’m okay with the typical util stuff, as well as deontology, but that is about it. However, I’m willing to listen to it and if you do a good job (which has happened!) explaining each implication and nuance in the framework, I should be good. You should slow down (to at least a 7 or 8) and give good overviews because I have likely not read your literature. Make framework interactions really clear for me so that I don’t feel lost.
 * Phil/Framework:**

No. Please don’t, I’m not the best at evaluating tricks in interaction with other arguments without getting really mad (or in general, to be honest) Also, if you’re going to do something like this, you should at least be good at it/good at regular debate, but I haven’t seen many people who are. I don’t love hearing affs that are basically a wall of spikes (this is different from an underview). If you do want to do this in front of me, at least slow down. I think burden affs can be interesting and strategic, and I am willing to listen to skepticism to contest frameworks or justify frameworks because it is the grounding of most normative ethics and important in philosophy, but please do not read skep to answer oppression arguments. As a general rule this is not my favorite kind of debate because it is usually done at top speed through very quick analytics. I’m not going to be thrilled if there are arguments that change function or trigger something in the next speech either if it was a quick one second analytic that was poorly warranted. Honestly, it is just a bad idea to do this in front of me.
 * Tricks:**

-Sexism, racism, homophobia, and any general offensive comments or behavior -Impact turning oppression arguments (I will never vote on oppression good. Sorry not sorry.) -Doing anything explicit that makes your opponent, myself, or anyone else in the room feel unsafe -**//Stealing//** other people’s cases/prep and pretending it is 100% yours. Academic dishonesty is not okay, do your own prep (this is different if you share prep with other teammates, but if I find out that you just stole someone’s case word for word off of Reddit or something, I will drop you) - Academic dishonesty in general (miscutting evidence, lying about arguments) I will probably just drop the argument up for contention rather than the debater (unless theory is read and whatever) but please don’t do this. This is different from not meeting citation rules based of NSDA or UIL and TFA rules :)
 * Things That I Will Drop You For:**

-Trigger warnings (but also not necessarily required—always up for debate) -Not reading Curry lol -Putting case on top/making good extensions -Asking for pronouns/using gender neutral ones throughout the round -Being kind (sass is definitely appreciated, rudeness is not.) -Disclosure!!! -Interesting/punny tags -Being a good sport!
 * Things I Appreciate:**

I will likely average around a 28 and go up or down from there. I reward strategy over clarity, but you need to be clear (otherwise I can’t even evaluate your strategy). If I give below a 26 then there was something egregious done in round and it will likely be on the ballot or I will tell you after the round. If you are especially offensive, I will not hesitate to report you to your coaches or the administration at this tournament. Speaks will be adjusted relative to tournament difficulty and competition. I will not dock speaks for speech impediments or similar situations, and if a debater brings it to my attention that this applies to them I will be more than willing to call clear more and evaluate strategy over clarity. Also, if you use plural words to refer to yourself ("we", "our") I will get annoyed and probably subtract speaks.
 * Speaks:**

If you have questions you can email me at kimberlyhsun@gmail.com or ask me before the round.