Su,+Joel

__***Last updated 12/07/2015**__ In high school I debated for two years at Stern Math and Science School. In college I debated for three years at California State University, Fullerton. I am currently an assitant debate coach for Damien High School. **My Evaluation** I find debate is an educational activity. What that looks like is up to the competitors, I will try and insert myself as best I can. My role as a judge is to be an educator and mediate between competing interests. **Judging** **I'm not very fond of spreading. I would rather you keep debates at a reasonable speed.** My Gold Standard for a mixture of speed and clarity is St. Vincent De Paul Martin & Hunter (Jack Howe, 2015, Round 1, v. San Dieguito Wimsatt & Wimsatt). On this issue, I have now adopted the right to yell "Clear", "Slow", and "Louder" to correct any flaws I have in understanding you. However, this should not be taken as an insult or an indication of low speaker points, but rather an opportunity to get more of your arguments onto my flow. Once my good will has been exhausted on understanding you, I will stop flowing. It is also in your best interest in to ensure I am flowing, and make adaptations if necessary. Spread adaptations have several good effects: higher speaker points are awarded to debaters who can adapt to my preferences, more arguments make it to the flow, and there is more analysis of arguments which means I think more deeply about your arguments. I may have not heard of your Kritik/Affirmative/Disadvantage/Counterplan/ etc. Don’t be offended. Don’t assume. In general it is best to err on the safe side and explain the plan function, the thesis of the disadvantage, and how counterplans avoid net benefits. __Framing debates__- An easy way to ensure higher speaks and tell me how and what to evaluate in 2nr/2ar is to have an ethos moment. An ethos moment tells me how to filter/view the debate. Explanations over cards. __I usually award my ballot to debaters who create a story and have good analysis of their arguments__. Like a lot of judges, smart arguments can beat carded evidence.

I perhaps am considered a "K hack". This by no means suggests I do not/prefer not to judge policy rounds. I find that there are good things from the policy side as well as the critical side. This is probably why I find myself judging a lot of "clash of civilizations" debates.

**Things I like to see in a round** Courtesy. Be nice to your partner and opponents. Be prepared to defend everything you say, do, or justify. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Time your own prep and your opponents. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Prep ends when flash is handed to opponents, otherwise I will deduct speaker points at my discretion. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Ethics** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Cheaters! You will lose. No clipping. No power tagging. No plagiarizing. No exceptions.** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">*The opposing team must prove without a doubt that such instances occurred. Video recordings resolve this for me. Punishment for stopping a debate and failing to prove dishonesty will result in an automatic loss or some consequence at the discretion of tournament officials. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Argument prefs** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Counterplans- For the love of what's holy read the plan text slowly, also extending the plan mechanism in later speeches is not a bad idea. Explain how the counterplan solves the net benefit. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Kritiks- Good plan and advantage links are very appreciated, as is alternative explanations. Avoid lengthy overviews as much as possible. Because of the complexity of Kritik debates, I suggest you read the **Miscellaenous** section and the __Framing__ section of my philosophy. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Disadvantages- Explain the story. I want to know very specifically what the affirmative does to uniquely trigger the link. The neg fares better chance at winning a disadvantage in front of me if I am clear on what the aff is or does. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Topicality- Slow down. I want to hear the interpretation and standards. Explicit extension of the interpretation(s) is most crucial here. I default to reasonability. Articulated abuse will likely win my ballot. I have a moderate threshold for potential abuse. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">*On issues of Kritik affirmatives, I do evaluate impact turns to arguments such as Topicality. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Theory- Mostly a nonstarter. I do not like this trend of two second voting issue theories. I consider theory to be a legitimate argument to ensure fairness, and when applied in situations that merit theory I can vote on it. Ridiculous or excessive theories will result in lower speaker points. That being said, I will vote for conceded theory arguments. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Permutation- Make it clear in 2ac when they are made. Also please explicitly extend the perm you go for in later speeches. I don't like guessing which perm you go for. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Independent Voters- I do not like the idea of evaluating issues independent of arguments that you go for. If you really want me to vote on one specific argument, I expect the whole 2nr/2ar to be just that.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Miscellaneous** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I've noticed that when evaluating kritik debates, a clear articulation of links/link turns has been lacking: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">1) I am not usually persuaded by links of ommission/deliberate exclusions of .... <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">2) Links that indict knowledge/logic and/or representations must show exactly how those representations manifest into something bad. (Historical analysis helps do this). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Ask me any questions before the round starts. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">3) Joel is a nerd <3 <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-Leo Kim