Kwon,+Young

Updated 12-1-13
 * Young Kwon**


 * Affiliation---**This is my third year debating for George Mason University (Varsity/National Circuit). I debated three years at W.T. Woodson HS.

I will vote on pretty much any arguments, but I do have very high threshold to arguments like wipeout. It's my job as judge to create a safe space for debaters to argue about their viewpoints; therefore, I will not tolerate any use of offensive language or arguments. If no framework is presented, I will default to consequentialist policymaking paradigm ** ---  ** this means __  impact calculus  __ is very important! Tell me why your impact __ outweighs  __ (mag/time/prob) and __  how it interacts with other things in debate  __.
 * Argument Evaluation**---


 * T**---It is a voting issue and comes before everything else (including theory). I am not sure if I default to competing interpretation or reasonability, but in either case, telling me what "reasonable" means in the context of your specific T arguments will help me resolve that issue. I view the T debate by determining who has better interpretation of the topic---discussions of predictability, limit, and case-list are good. You will probably lose if you fail to counter-define words. Please don't read 5 seconds ASPEC shell. SPEC arguments are sometimes persuasive, but usually aren't because they aren't developed well.


 * DA**---I think more teams should go for DA+Case strat. Teams going for DA should have a robust impact extension with turns case arguments. I am a big politics hack, so politics theory arguments aren’t persuasive to me. Even if neg concedes intrinsicness, I won’t vote on it unless it’s impacted/explained well in the 1ar---I won’t check in with 10 seconds 1ar extension. Uniqueness probably controls the direction of the link (not always). I will vote on no risk of the DA.


 * CP**---I like case specific, tricky CPs, but generic process/agents/pics/multiplaks etc are cool. If you can defend that your CP is theoretically legitimate and competitive with the aff, go for it. However, I am very skeptical that CP that results in plan such as consult or conditions, is competitive/legitimate. You should have an overview explaining what CP does---it will help me understand nuances/tricks of your CP if you do. You also need to win the risk of net-benefit-“solving better” isn’t a net-benefit. * I am __not__ going to judge-kick the CP unless 2nr makes the argument. (AFF should obviously say judge-condo is bad).


 * Kritiks**---Although I have been very right-leaning traditionally, I have voted and will vote on Ks. I like it when kritiks are used strategically. I would prefer that you have case/topic specific links, but I still think that you could spin your generic stuff in a way that sounds “specific” to the aff. (However, I find myself rarely voting for psychoanalysis or post-modern criticisms because they aren't explained well.) Going deep into the framework/alt debate will probably help you a lot going for the K in front of me. Impact calculus is also important in giant impact-turn debate for both sides. Aff should make sure to answer K tricks (floating PICs, framework, root cause etc) and capitalize on the alt level---in my opinion, best aff args vs Ks are some combination of case outweighs+ perm or alt takeouts.


 * Theory**---I have high threshold for voting on theory and cheapshot---conceded conditionality still needs to be explained/impacted. I default to rejecting the argument. Anything over two conditional advocacies, especially **__contradicting conditional advocacies__**, could be problematic. In that case, going for conditionality might not be a bad option if you can articulate a clear abuse story and reasons to reject the team (or at least tell me what I should do to remedy the abuse).


 * Project/K affs/Framework**---Seems like I'm starting to judge clash debates a lot...I have never ran project/K affs before, but they serve valuable purpose in the debate community. I need a clear explanation of the role of the ballot, the function and solvency of the aff. Neg teams going for framework---I will vote on theoretical framework arguments, but I think those arguments are not really persuasive because affs almost always wins that traditional debate is either already unfair or messed up. So unless the theoretical part is under-covered, I would recommend you to focus on the substantive framework arguments---explain why SSD and policy-deliberation are important and how they __internal link-turns/solves__ the 1ac. That means you have to tailor those arguments specific to the aff. You should also engage with the substance of 1AC to mitigate the risk of impact turns to your framework. It would also help if you have an evidence/a robust explanation describing why a particular topical version of the aff solves.


 * Calling for Cards**---I think having good evidence is important, but cards are useless if you do not do the work to explain their warrants and impact them. Sometimes, a well-developed analytic argument could beat a series of poor evidence extension. I usually call for cards in order to resolve close debates or disagreement over the content of evidence. Note that if a card contains many warrants, I will only evaluate the parts of evidence that you fleshed out and discussed in round.


 * Paperless**---** I don’t take prep time for jumping, so if you’re done putting things in a speech doc, just tell me to stop the prep. During the jumping process, __ YOU HAVE TO STOP PREP __ ‼‼‼‼‼ Don’t steal prep time---each time I see teams stealing prep I will deduct speaker points by 0.5. Also, you should mark your cards during speech---do this by saying “mark at [insert the word you stop at]," and ACTUALLY marking the speech doc. If jumping time starts becoming unreasonably long, I will take away prep time. **

Flow**---I am very flow-centric---I can usually flow quickly, but if you want to highlight an important argument, __slow down__ and __be clear__ (especially in T/Theory debates). I will not evaluate arguments that weren't clearly articulated/explained during speeches.

Speaker points---I will use the Wake College tournament's suggested scale.

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask before the round. Have fun J