Yim,+Andrew

I am currently in my sixth year of debate: 4 years at Broad Run High School, and my second year for James Madison University.
 * Affiliation**

I’m mostly open to almost every argument, but if there’s an outlier argument such as Wipeout or anything extremely crazy, then you’ll need to REALLY convince me why that argument is a reason to vote for you. As a judge, it is my duty to evaluate the round based on how you present the arguments and why they matter in this particular debate round (or debate in general); and it’s your responsibility to prove to me as to why your arguments matter and why they are key to winning this debate round. If no particular framework or voting mechanism is present in the round, I will default to the standard impact calculus meaning you have to present timeframe, magnitude, and probability; and also explain how it applies to other parts in the debate.
 * Overview**

I usually put T above Theory, but if Theory calls for immediate action and proves more abuse, then I might put Theory above T. I also have a high threshold on T, but I usually don’t default to competing interpretations unless you’re giving me an excellent standards debate. If you’re extending a standard, warrant the impact and the given abuse in the debate round and prove why your specific interpretation meets these standards. Also, I have a REALLY HIGH threshold on ASPEC, so if you just read a simple 10 second ASPEC shell, I will not vote on it UNLESS it is dropped, severely undercovered throughout the debate, or if the neg is legitimately going for it in the 2NR.
 * T**

I personally think that DAs & Case 2NRs are viable, but you need to have really good impact take outs on case and a very good link story on the DA (along with a strong impact calc). DA, CP & Case are orthodox when going for a DA, so you can go for that if you want. For me, uniqueness usually controls the direction and credibility of the link, but you still have to explain why both matter before the 2NR. On an additional note, politics theory doesn’t appeal to me as much, so if you’re going to run it, make sure to articulate it well and give me a REALLY good reason to evaluate it.
 * DA**

If you’re going to read a CP, make sure to have a CP text. If you don’t have one, well you should know that I will not evaluate it whatsoever. I also prefer CP’s to be specific because a generic CP may not appeal to me as much (e.g. executive order, consultation, PICs, etc.) and will probably won’t come off as “competitive” to me. The CP also needs to have a net-benefit(s) because without it, there’s no reason for me to vote for it. It needs to be competitive against the plan and you must provide reasons as to why the plan doesn’t access the net benefit(s) as well (including why the perm doesn’t as well). Aff, you need to make sure to explain the warrants behind your perm before the 2AR in the debate in order to give me a clear reason as to why it solves better than either the plan or CP alone. Neg, you need to explain how the perm doesn’t access the net benefit(s) or you can apply theory such as severance, multiple conditional perms bad, etc. And just because the net benefit is “something that the aff doesn’t do” doesn’t mean that I’ll vote for it. Again, explain why it matters.
 * CP**

Although I’m not as K thirsty as I used to be in high school, I do know a good number of K literature and can follow for the most part. HOWEVER, assume that I’m a blank slate if you’re going to run a K. Don’t expect me to intervene and assume that I already know what K you’re mentioning. DON’T ASSUME THAT JUST BECAUSE THE OTHER TEAM DOESN’T ANSWER YOUR K MEANS THAT YOU AUTOMATICALLY WIN THE ROUND. You still have to explain to me how the K still functions and be consistent with the K rather than just saying “they dropped the link, extend that alt, and they didn’t perm. We should win this round.” Give me a link story [and I’d rather prefer a hyper specific link rather than a generic one if you want me to evaluate the situation easily], explain the alt and the alt story, what happens in a post-alt world, and why your impacts outweigh the aff’s. I will not vote for the K if the story isn’t told well or if a key element wasn’t explained thoroughly. Aff, if you want to win against a K, you have to explain to me the perm’s functionality and why it solves better than just solely the alt (and win perm theories if they’re stated by the neg). Also, perf con, condo, and multiple worlds are also key theory arguments to battling a K [refer to Theory analysis below].
 * K**

Don’t spread theory (at least not at top speed [refer to the spreading section]). Theory is basically the rules of debate and I have a pretty high threshold when voting on it. If a theory argument is dropped, don’t just extend what you already have read. Extend, warrant the abuse, and then impact it---theory is pointless without impacts. However, although I don’t really use judge intervention within the round, if you have MULTIPLE CONTRADICTORY CONDITIONAL ADVOCACIES in the 2NR and I find it REALLY difficult to go for one without contradicting the other (or if you don’t give me a REALLY GOOD explanation as to why I should evaluate them in separate conditional worlds), then I will not vote on it.
 * Theory**

I only ran 3 kritikal affs in my debate career, but that doesn’t mean I’m not willing to listen to your kritikal affs as well. Like I stated above, I’m willing to listen to any arguments as long as they’re articulated well. Most of my K aff paradigm is a cross-over from the K section: if you want me to evaluate your argument the way you want me to evaluate it, then make sure to tell a significant story, why it matters, why I should care, and the perm debates should be specific and analysis-heavy. **Framework** though, I will vote for theoretical framework debates if they are explained properly and can either prove abuse or no abuse depending on the side. Also, when debating framework, make sure to defend your interpretation and your impacts as well, and explain why your other arguments meet that framework. The framework should also apply to both teams and not just to favor your chances of winning. Any other theoretical objections on framework can be seen in the Theory section.
 * Kritikal Affs, Performance, Framework**

The standard impact calc includes TMP: timeframe, magnitude, and probability. Impacts can also vary between policy impacts such as economic decline and nuclear war, or kritikal impacts such as dehumanization and value to life. But no matter what type of impact it is, you must explain how it outweighs the other team’s impacts and why it matters more for me to prevent that impact from happening. And remember, not all impacts are strictly magnitude. I.e. you can win a short-term but immediate impact if you give good warrants as to why it matters more than an impact that will occur in the next 20 years.
 * Impact Calc**

When extending evidence, don’t just read the cites and the tag line. You MUST provide a WARRANT as to why that particular evidence is important in your speech. A card or extension is useless without warrants and if you give me just the tag, the author, and the date, then I will either not evaluate it or just label it as a weak argument extension.
 * Extending/Cross-Applying**

When debating on paper, make sure to have the cards available to the other team after reading them (i.e. putting them on a desk next to you so your opponents can have easy access to them). Also, make sure the cards are piled in an organized fashion and not scattered everywhere. It’s very disorienting and can cause confusion during the round.
 * Paper Debate**

Laptop folders, jump drives, email chains, and Dropbox has become a norm in modern debate and we are very reliant on technology in order to swiftly exchange information. When jumping flash drives, I will not take prep. However, before the jumping starts, YOU MUST STOP PREP!!! THAT MEANS NO MORE TYPING, NO MORE HIGHLIGHTING, NO MORE THINKING ABOUT DEBATE!!! I will dock speaker points (usually 0.5) if I catch you stealing prep time. If jumping files starts taking too much time, then I will resume prep immediately.
 * Paperless Debate**

I’m perfectly comfortable with spreading, however if you are UNCLEAR and don’t distinguish your tags from your warrants when reading evidence, chances are: I will not flow the correct argument you intended me to flow, or I will just not flow it. Clarity over speed is important when delivering a speech. **ALSO, IF YOU WANT TO EXTEND A PARTICULAR ARGUMENT THAT’S CRUCIAL TO THE DEBATE ROUND, SLOW DOWN AND BE CLEAR (especially when reading T and theory arguments). IF YOU DO NOT CLEARLY ARTICULATE WHY THESE ARGUMENTS ARE IMPORTANT (includes clarity and warrants), THEN I WILL NOT EVALUATE THEM.**
 * Spreading or Speed Reading & Flowing**


 * Speaker Points (distribution)**
 * 30** – You are a super amazing debater, your arguments were VERY clear and articulated really well, and your ethos within the round was phenomenal. You are definitely worthy of top (first) speaker and I will definitely try to recruit you for the JMU Debate Team or the JMU Debate Camp (any debater, really) if you’re not a junior or senior.
 * 29.5/29** – Your argumentation, articulation and ethos in the round was impressive and it was very clear to me that you were well-organized and knew what you were doing within the round. Maybe a slight mistake here and there, but definitely worthy of one of the top 5 speakers.
 * 28.5/28** – Your argumentation and articulation were solid, but there were a few mistakes to fix and some improvements that could help you debate better in future rounds. On the other hand, you are usually standing in 6th-10th speakers.
 * 27.5/27** – Clarity and argumentation was inconsistent, but was manageable to follow. There are a good number of things you can do to improve your speech and I recommend doing more practice debates with your teammates in order to bring those speaks up more.
 * 26.5/26** – There are some severe issues with your speech and argumentation and there are many things that could be improved in your speeches. I’ll offer more speaking drills and practice debates to help improve your articulation and argumentation for future debates.
 * 20** – You were downright rude in the round and your arguments were either offensive or veered away so much from the topic that it had absolutely nothing to do with the debate.


 * __Additional Notes__**
 * 1. DON’T CALL ME “JUDGE”!!! I CAN’T STRESS THAT ENOUGH. Just call me “__Yim__.”**
 * 2. Please be nice in rounds. Debate is about educating the other team, the judge, and the audience if there is one. Be respectful to your partner and your opponents as well. Nothing makes me more agitated and annoyed than a debate that turns an insult fest.**
 * 3. I know in debate, you want to win trophies and medals and such, but don’t put your ego in front of others. Be respectful and don’t go boasting and gloating around the tournament. Yes, congratulations, you won a round, but my respect for you will go down and it may affect the next time you have me as a judge.**
 * 4. 3NR’s are not encouraged. I know some of you may not know what 3NR’s are, but if you do, know that my decision will 99% stay the same. You can try to convince me and I will offer my views/reasons as to why I voted for the other team, but if you keep on persisting and I know you’re just trying to squirrel your way for a win, then I will ignore you and just say that you didn’t explain well enough for me to evaluate it the way you wanted me to.**
 * __5. Finally, I value effort over everything else. If I know you tried hard in the debate round and you put your effort towards it (and are respectful), then I will be happy to offer criticism and ways to improve your future debates. Keeping me happy throughout the round yields greater feedback and gives you a better reputation as a student and as a debater. Plus, I’ll have better respect for you when judging you in future debate rounds.__**

If you need any more specifications, please ask before the round starts.