Heo,+Min

__Background__

I was an LD debater for 2 years and I’m currently a freshman at Washington University in St. Louis. I didn’t debate much on nat circuit although I have some experience going to this tournament (2 years) plus Dowling Catholic (1 year) and CFL’s which I qualified to both years of debate. I was a very traditional debater so while I have experience with K’s and other meta-debate, I’m not a fan. I’m also currently taking a course in political theory so I am open to many forms of framework.

__Arguments__ As I wrote earlier, I was a traditional debater so I prefer to see a traditional debate, but I have enough experience in nat circuit where I can judge a round on K's, theory, and other stuff if that really is the most comfortable form of debate for you. Mainly I'm looking at how the contention level applies to the framework. I like to see a good clash of contentions but ultimately how your contentions apply to the framework (yours or your opponent's) will win the round. I'm also a huge fan of turns so try to turn cards or even whole contentions if you see one you can make. I don't have a high threshold for extensions, but do say more than "extend this." I have to at least know what the extension does. Finally please weigh your voters. I need to know what makes one case better than the other. I am not an interventionist so any argument is fair game so long as it isn't beyond ridiculous.

__Framework__ I don't have a default framework. I'm familiar with a lot of different moral philosophy so as long as the framework is coherent, I will accept whoever has the better argued framework. However, I will most likely catch anything that is interpreted wrong and in that case I will default to your opponents framework. Remember I studied this stuff so I can tell you what is right or wrong. Worst case scenario I'm a bigger fan of util rather than deon so note that. But don't be shy about using a deon framework because I'm perfectly happy with any logical framework.

__Counterplan__ I will vote on a counterplan if it provides valid reasoning as to why I should reject the aff policy. Beware that I will also vote on perms too.

__Kritiks, theory, etc.__ If I have to I will judge a round on any of the above. I have enough experience with them, although they aren’t something I want to judge. Don't expect me to be great judge on a K debate either. If you need to use it to win, I will deal with it. If you do decide to use a K, make sure you tie it to the round, because I won't pick up a debater who just spits out cards.

__Speed__ I would put myself at a 6/10 on a speed scale. Don’t expect me to keep up with spreading because I won’t. I can keep up with a reasonably fast pace, but I definitely won't be able to keep up with anything near your max speed. Be sure to speak clearly as well because slow and garbled isn't much help to me. But I think it's your job to read my cues about how comfortable I am with your speed. I won't shout during a debate, but if you see that I'm not writing for a length of time, you are probably going too fast. If you get too fast where I don't think I can attempt to keep up, I'm just going to drop my pen altogether (Or put my labtop off to the side if I use that to flow). Be ESPECIALLY clear when you analyze analytics because i feel that the analytics is more important than the card. If I do miss a card in the first speech, you can reiterate a card's meaning in the second speech and I will include that in round.

__Speaker Points__ A solid debate will give each side a 27-28. Extra points come where you extend arguments really well or just sound really pretty. I deduct points if you talk unclearly or too fast. I don’t care about aggressive debating so long as you don’t blatantly insult your opponent. I will give a perfect score when I see a good round (and I am more than willing to give 30's when I see it). Just think traditional and speaks should be fine. If you amuse me in round I'm also more inclined to give higher speaks.