Won,+Jong+Hak

email chains: jonghak.won@gmail.com (also message here if you have questions about any of this below) Hi there! I'm currently a first year out at Georgetown University where I am doing college policy. I did LD for four years at West Ranch where I earned 7 bids and cleared at the TOC my senior year. I am currently working as an assistant coach at Debatedrills.

__**General overview:**__ __**Clash debates:**__ __**Util/LARP:**__
 * I am not dogmatic about any particular argument style. You do you and I will do my best to evaluate the arguments that you make. Any preferences you see below are simply my thoughts on debate as well as explaining my comfortability evaluating certain types of debates. There are 2 main caveats to this :
 * **1. Debate is a safe space: I will not tolerate any blatantly offensive arguments. This includes, but is not limited to, arguments that are explicitly racist, sexist, or homophobic. These are grounds for an auto-loss and zero speaks at minimum**
 * **2. No cheating: that means no card clipping, stealing prep, etc. Prep ends when doc is compiled. I would definitely prefer that people disclose what aff they're reading and past 2nr's to each other.**
 * I will vote on almost any argument that has a warrant and is cleanly extended and weighed
 * Signpost clearly. I was never the best flower and my flows were always pretty disorganized. Please slow down for tags and author names
 * My only experience with reading a non-T aff was an experiment at camp before my senior year whereas I went for T every time I debated against a non-T aff my senior year. This doesn't mean I think that T is absolutely true and I'll be happy to vote up a non-T aff if debated well in front of me.
 * "I agree the world is structurally unfair, and wish my ballot would somehow affect that -- I have yet to hear an explanation for why it would." -Brandon Kelley
 * Perhaps the one argument I'll be skeptical of is that debate has no value. Neither you nor I are wasting time doing all this research and travel. In line with my statements above, I'll evaluate arguments on this line but it will be a **very** uphill battle.
 * Bear in mind what I said re: safes spaces above. If your performance incorporates things that could draw on personal attacks or the like, a good litmus test for whether or not I'm ok with it is NDT finals last year (Gtown v Rutgers). The 1nc was definitely in bounds. Portions of the 1nr were definitely not.
 * This is probably the style of debate I feel most comfortable evaluating since I did this the most in high school. I will be comfortable evaluating both small-scale structural violence type args as well as traditional policy big stick impacts
 * I am a big fan of weighing in the first speech and am likely to grant higher credence to weighing arguments that are in the first speech. For example, DA's should have impact calc against aff advantages in the 1nc. I won't categorically not evaluate weighing in the 2nr and 2ar but I'll grant it much lower credence.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I think that evidence quality isn't taken seriously enough in LD debate. Good and nuanced ev comparison will likely yield higher speaks. Not enough people ask for the methodology of studies which I think is an extremely important part of ev comparison debates.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I think that it is very unstrategic to not read impact defense/turns agaisnt impact scenarios. My personal experience tells me that people are not prepared to have these debates
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I am personally persuaded by reasons for judge kick but I also recognize how that can make the 2ar impossible. So, I will only do this if the 2nr explicitly says that I should kick the cp for them. However, 2ar's are probably not going to have to do much work to answer this

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**__Theory__:**
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Update: as I continue to debate in policy, my threshold for theory arguments are likely to get higher. When I am judging LD, I'll do my best to "recalibrate" my evaluation of theory arguments, but bear this in mind when you're thinking about your strategy in front of me. I'm noticing a lot of theory args in LD are starting to make me really cranky these days
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I generally feel comfortable evaluating most theory debates
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Paradigm issues: Default to text over spirit, no RVI's, reasonability, and drop the argument absent argumentation otherwise
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I have an upper limit on how fast I can write/type so slow down for dense theory analytics and interps
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I am generally very skeptical of arguments that claim to entirely preclude other interps/standards. I will still accept weighing that says one shell is lexically prior if it's warranted like reasons as to why meta-theory constrains my ability to evaluate the original theory interp. However, arguments like "neg abuse outweighs aff abuse" just seem like strength of link or magnitude weighing
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">As an additional caveat to the previous point, these types of theory weighing debates are also incredibly frustrating to judge and will likely result in me being cranky and handing out lower speaks. I also feel like these debates require some level of arbitrariness that will likely be reflected in my rfd.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">__**Kritiks:**__
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Another layer I feel comfortable evaluating on par with theory debates
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I read mostly stock kritiks throughout high school (biopower, pess, borders, prison abolition, cap)
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"High theory" kritiks like DnG I didn't understand in high school. I'm still willing to evaluate these debates but you'll probably want to pref me lower and if I'm still in the back, also take care to over-explain things to me at a slower pace.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I'll feel very uncomfortable voting for your k if you're not able to give me a thorough explanation of your alternative, what it does, and why it's a logical opportunity cost to the plan. To clarify, dropping a bunch of k buzzwords is not going to get my ballot.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I default to epistemic modesty absent any other weighing arguments

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">__**Philosophy/Framework**__
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">This is probably the area of debate where I excelled at the least in high school and am probably going to be the least comfortable evaluating
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I'll feel comfortable evaluating a more stock framework like util, Kant, agonism, Rawls, Hobbes, deliberative democracy, etc but I'll need more explanation for more obscure frameworks like pragmatism, Levinas, civic republicanism, inoperative community, etc
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I default to ethical modesty absent any other weighing arguments

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">__**Tricks**__
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I was never a fan of these arguments personally but I am still willing to vote on them if they're conceded and extended
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">My one caveat is that if you are reading these arguments, you must explicitly label and number them. To clarify, your tricks cannot be buried/hidden in another paragraph of analytics. I have almost zero tolerance for those types of shenanigans and will not vote on them if conceded

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">__**Speaks**__
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">will use this as a general guide to speaks: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">short rule of thumb if you don't have time to read: "**28.5 is the overall median** for the entire pool. About **80 percent** of points given out are **between 28 and 29**.​ If you give somebody **above a 29.0**, you are saying that they **definitely belong** in the elims. If you give somebody **below a 28.4**, you are saying that they **definitely don't belong** in the elims."
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">It is exceedingly unlikely that I give you a 30 because **speeches aren't perfect**