Kim,+JJ

__**INTRODUCTION**__ JJ Kim (The Harker Schools) Lexington High School class of ‘14 (Lexington, MA) University of California, Berkeley class of ‘18 (Berkeley, CA) Please add me on your email chains: jjkim96@gmail.com

//This wiki entry is for Policy/CX Debate. If you're looking for my LD philosophy, you can find it under my judge entry in Tabroom.com.//

__**NON-NEGOTIABLE BELIEFS (if you think you need to strike me, here are the reasons why)**__ Debate is a game, nothing more, nothing less. Considering debate more important than just a game does not entitle you to my sympathy. The role of the ballot is to vote for the best player. A dropped role of the ballot means nothing if not backed up with reasons why the other team has lost the game. Affs must win that their aff is a good idea. Negs must win that the aff makes things worse and/or that the neg makes things better than the aff does. Conditionality is a reason to reject the team, unless negotiated otherwise by the debaters. Other theoretical objections are almost always a reason to reject the argument. Judge kick is bad for debate. So are new 2AR extrapolations. I don't enjoy counterplans without solvency advocates. I don't think I will ever vote for a kritik without an alternative.

Education is important. Some forms of education are more important than others. Life may be bad, but death is //probably// worse. Politics may not get better for the marginalized, but it can //definitely// get worse. Metaphors are unproductive vehicles of communication. Ballots cannot change reality. Ballots cannot protect. Ballots cannot kill. Ballots cannot endorse or negate people, just their arguments.

__**ARGUMENT PREFERENCES**__ I’ve extensively studied International Relations, specifically China (and Taiwan), Japan and South Korea. I mainly ran CP/DA strategies as a high school student. At college, I read plenty of Afro-Pessimism while defending a realist IR policy aff, and was coached by some of the best minds in both fields. I’m also very Korean. That should give you a decent idea of my openness to different types of arguments. --Aff teams that don’t balk at K teams and go for “extinction outweighs” instead of running soft-left affs --Aff teams that beat silly positions with 1AC evidence --Aff teams whose critical politics start with a certain goal in mind but nevertheless contains a broader political trajectory for change (as opposed to a wholesale rejection/endorsement of an abstract concept) --Neg teams that do heavy aff-specific link analysis on the K --Neg teams that don't need a huge overview on the K and executes competent line-by-line instead --Neg teams that don’t read cards where they don’t need to (keep in mind that most DAs //do require// a barrage of cards in the block) --Neg teams that are willing to tackle the aff’s case head-on with CP/DA, DA/Case, and/or Impact turns --Neg teams that can execute Framework with competence --Anything math-related (I wish I were joking) --High theory (e.g. Baudrillard, Delueze)
 * Debaters I love to judge:**
 * Things I need more explanation on (but have still voted for):**

__**STYLISTIC CRITERIA (Impressing me as a //debater//)**__ Speak with conviction. Pathos is an underrated art of persuasion and an essential driver of your broader ethos. Make sure I’m on the same page. I make faces. Try to catch them when you can. Have excellent line-by-line. Make my job easy and I’ll reward you generously. Be crystal clear. Cards, theory, overviews, everything. Slow down when it counts. Use your opponents’ words against them. Beat them at their own game. Rigorously compare evidence. “Why is our card good” is a C+ at best. “Why is our card //better than theirs//” is a B- at worst. Spin evidence. Use one argument to answer two, three others. Tactically reprocess, repackage, then reapply information.

__**EXPECTED BEHAVIOR (Making me respect you as a //person//)**__ Don’t run toxic strategies. There are impacts that can be turned and those that cannot. Don’t cheat. Please don’t spit on a good activity. You don’t have to treat your opponents nicely, but you do have to treat them like debaters. Let them talk when it’s their turn. Shake their hands after the round. But don’t shake my hand. I’m already cringing at the thought of it.

__**FRIVOLOUS NOTES**__ I appreciate debaters. I promise to try to judge to the best of my abilities, even if I'm placed in an unfamiliar/uncomfortable round. You deserve that much. I dislike inorganic humor. Executing comedy with style and authenticity is difficult. The best humor comes naturally. I detest inorganic edginess. If you're trying hard to not be a tryhard, please consider how I will perceive you. I find myself giving debaters the benefit of the doubt when it comes to accidentally problematic behavior, specifically when it comes down to slips in gendered/ableist language. As long as debaters earnestly apologize and pledge to not do it again (and actually don’t do it again), I feel that it’s not my place as a judge to intervene in an otherwise substantive debate. I want to judge, not police.