Chung,+Doowon

Chung, Doowon [Wake Forest University / Lexington High School] Number of TOURNAMENTS Judged (This Year’s Topic): 1 Number of ROUNDS Judged (This Year’s Topic): 7

Debate is about hard work, but you shoudl also enjoy yourself. I will work hard as your judge. The following information may be relevant: Tech vs. Truth: I tend to prioritize the arguments on the flow over the strict truth. A conceded argument is considered as 100% true. The emphasis is on argument. Arguments consist of a claim and a warrant. A conceded claim without a warrant means nothing. Cheap Shots: No thanks. You actually have to win debates. Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. Left alone, I default to standard of competing interpretations. Reasonability does not make that much sense to me as “what is reasonable” seems to be an arbitrary standard. I have not judged very much on this topic, so if your Topicality violation is complicated, you should keep that in mind. Kritiks: DEFAULT: the aff gets to weigh case, the negative gets a legitimate alternative. Framework is usually not a reason to reject the team or the K, only a reason that the aff gets to weigh their case. Specific arguments outweigh generic arguments. Critical affs: DEFAULT: you must have and defend a plan. Kritiks of the negative impacts do not prove that the aff is a good idea (i.e. if the negative “kicks” the problematic impact legitimately, it is not an independent reason to vote aff). Theory: I would say I’m more negative leaning on theory. From a default position, conditionality, international fiat, PICs, 2NC CPs, CP amendments, fifty state fiat and agent counterplans are good. Conditioned counterplans, consult counterplansm delay counterplans and the like are probably not competitive. Private, object and utopian fiat abuse fiat. Functional competition, not textual competition. DEFAULT: Theory debates are a question of the extent of negative fiat. Thus, winning a theory argument is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Permutations: should include the entirety of the aff plan. They are tests of competition unless otherwise specified. No, multiple perms are not a voting issue. Neither are severance and/or intrinsic perms. They are reasons to reject the argument. Disads – DEFAULT: offense/defense. Link direction is more important than uniqueness. “We control uniqueness, so there’s no risk of aff offense” is a neg euphemism for “we’re losing the link debate, please protect us.” Turn the case. Turn the case. Turn the case. If you successfully win your DA and it turns case, you will probably win. Case: try or die is persuasive. If there is a 100% risk of extinction without the aff, then even a .00001% mitigation of the disad is a reason to vote aff. There’s nothing better than a negative team driving on to affirmative ground and wrecking them. Impact calculus: do it early and it will benefit you.