Kim,+Rinnah

=__Introduction __= = = toc = = Hello! My name is Rinnah Kim, and I am a PARENT JUDGE. However, I am not the stereotypical parent judge and thus I will elaborate on how I am.

I am a parent of Thomas Kim and am thus affiliated with Vincentian Academy. Most of what Thomas says on his paradigm applies to me but I would prefer that you NEVER spread. I emphasize this due to the fact that I also judge on the national circuit (due to the fact that there is a judging requirement at the tournaments that my son competes at). This does not mean, however, that you cannot run anything that is not traditional. I am fine with off-case (as Thomas elaborately "lectured" me on the various forms of off-case arguments) but please be clear. IF YOU MUST SPREAD, THEN YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST GIVE ME A PRINTED COPY OF YOUR CASE. IF YOU DO NOT DO SO, KNOW THAT I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT FLOW WHAT I CAN'T HEAR OR UNDERSTAND REGARDLESS OF THE OPPONENT BRINGING IT UP. I WILL SAY CLEAR TWICE AT MOST.

=__General Points (Short form) __=

I am a firm believer in the idea that LD is a philosophical debate. That said, I am not saying that empirics are unnecessary to support your claims. I LOVE empirics (just as any other debater would) and having them will make me happy. I am however, an even greater fan of debates where there is a framework clash and where both debaters try to prove about the existence of a logical fallacy of the opponent's arguments. Simply put, if you focus on the philosophical aspect of arguments then I will be very happy.

=__Specific Arguments __= **DA**: If I can't understand the logical flow of your DA starting from the link, I won't flow it. Be especially careful if you are going to run an extinction argument, I like clear reasoning. If you have me as a judge, I highly recommend not running DA's with impacts as large as nuclear warfare. **Meta Theory/Theory/T**: Look at Thomas Kim paradigm. I think in the same way as him. **Plans/CP**: I think that these are interesting, and can generally follow them. Go for these args, but if again read the spreading rule I have. **K**: These are really interesting to me, but I find that debaters who run these either have a very iffy flow of logic or I find that the alt is not supported well enough. I want to see why the alt specifically is better. I don't think that just because you show that the aff/neg is bad, that rejecting it is necessarily better. Also, if you run a K then make the RoTB clear.

In general, I think that off-case arguments are fine. I will try my best to understand the arguments you present but I cannot guarantee that I will.

=__Speaker Points __=

I NEVER give low-point wins for speaker points. I have a somewhat distinct form of giving speaker points (as in the criteria is a bit different).

**30** = If you don't win the tournament, or at least get to quarters, I will be very disappointed in you. You were very clear, logically strong and awesome as a debater. I really enjoyed the round overall and hope to see that you go to the TOC. **29** = You have a shot at winning the tournament, and I have high expectations for you. If you don't get to at least octas, I will be quite disappointed in you. You were clear, logically solid, and a pretty cool debater to listen to. I liked the round and can see the __potential__ of going to the TOC. **28** = You are a good debater and can definitely break, but I am not too sure on whether or not you have a winning shot. I think that you should be able to at most get to octas or quarters but then will drop. However, you were clear enough, logical and made the round worth listening to. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**27 (STARTING POINT)** = You are a decent debater and can probably break, but I have doubts on you being able to win. I think that you can may be able to get to octas but probably no further. However, you were clear enough, fairly logical, and made the round worthwhile. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**26** = You aren't bad! I have some doubt that you can break, but I have doubts on whether or not you can go any further. You weren't very clear, somewhat logical, and made the round somewhat worthwhile. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**20 to 25** = You have some room for improvement. I don't think that you can break and I think you should be satisfied if you break even at the tournament. You weren't clear, wasn't very logical, and made the round a bit confusing to listen to. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**Less than 20** = We need to talk after round. I am disappointed in your efforts as a debater and or your manners/attitude. You may get reported to Tab/your coach if the issue is anything behavioral.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Thank you!

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Sincerely, <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Rinnah Kim