Yoo,+Junsun

Name : Jun Sun Yoo

Years in Activity: Since 2008-2012

Awards: Double-Octas at Stanford, Quarters at Gonzaga, Double-Octas at Berkeley, Top 20 at California State, Top 40 at Nationals

4 years high school debate, no college debate School Affiliation: Leland High School, San Jose, California

I attend UC Berkeley, but I am not debating for their team, so I am honestly a little bit rusty. However as a judge I am willing to listen to any argument; no matter how “crazy” it may appear. I also have not judged nor seen any rounds on this year’s topic. So make sure everything is relatively clear. This means that I don’t know any freaking acronyms. In the beginning instead of saying the acronym you say the entire phrase; it would make my life so much easier.

Topicality: Love topicality went for it a lot, however I hate bad T-debates. Make sure there is clash and that the debate goes beyond “they overlimit the resolution.” I feel like people throw around way too much jargon in T – and say them as if they were arguments. I honestly think that T should be debated in the same manner of a DA. I think aff cases should all have a strong defense of why the affirmative’s interpretation of topicality is better for debate than the negative. Reasonability does NOT mean “it sounds topical”, it means that the affirmative team’s case does not destroy the topic in the impacted ways the negative team claims. This may seem neg biased, but it absolutely is not if you have a good, carded definition and have good defenses. For example, the aff will probably always lose a limits claim, but they could have a definitional basis from the government. They could then claim that predictability is a more important standard than limits because [insert warrant here], and therefore, is the standard you evaluate before other standards.

Disads: A solid choice in any debate, I like debates that go beyond the date battle, and really get into the warrants in the cards. (This is true for any argument, but I feel like it is most important on disads) I also LOVE interesting disads that really interact with the Affirmative. Either super interesting, or super strategic

Counterplans: I feel like counterplans are getting a little bit out of hand, and in I think affirmative’s should go for more theory arguments, especially against consult, condition, cp’s. If there is good literature to defend your counterplan, then go for it. However if it is generic, then I’m a little bit iffy. I obviously will not vote against you for reading these counterplans, it depends what the affirmative team says. I’m just saying that I probably have a lower threshold for voting on theory if the affirmative goes for it convincingly, and the negative has no theoretical/literature justifications for the counterplan. The same thing goes for permutation. It needs to be theoretically justifiable. However the more iffy the counterplan, the more lenient I am with iffy perms. But generally I like counterplan debates with good evidence backing it, and a solid solvency advocate.

Kritiks: This is what I mainly went for in high school and what I am probably most comfortable with. (8mins in the 1nc brah) However, like what I said about T, if you cannot explain your own argument, then I will not vote for you. I think when running the kritik the link is really important. The more generic the link the more likely I am willing to believe the affirmative arguments such as “impact inevitable” etc. I am probably more willing than other judges to think that discursive kritiks are ok, as well as kritiks without alternatives. However this obviously means that as the neg you have to be able to justify it. This also means that framework arguments are therefore super important, because this obviously helps me evaluate the round more easily.

Performance Affs: I actually think that performance affs are pretty interesting. I think the most important thing to do in the round is explain to me clearly HOW I should vote and WHY I should care about what you are talking about. Obviously have good theoretical justifications for your affirmative.

Important! My flow is a messy pile of shit, don’t make it even more messy. Signpost clearly please, number your arguments, I will give you higher speaker points if you do. I am generally liberal with speaker points, debate clearly and don’t be an asshole. This does not mean you cannot be aggressive in cross-X, I mean the people who roll their eyes, and scoff really loudly, when their opponents are talking.

I will generally not call for evidence unless it is contested, otherwise it is up to you to explain what your great piece of evidence says, and not just say “this is a great piece of evidence call for this at the end of the round”

In all honesty run whatever you want, however you want to run it. Just be good at what you do and I will vote for you.