Kim,+Joel

Katy Taylor 2011-2015 Rice University 2015-2019 Conflicts: Katy Taylor Link to my aff wiki my senior year: https://hspolicy14.debatecoaches.org/Katy+Taylor/Brents-Kim+Aff Link to my neg wiki my senior year: https://hspolicy14.debatecoaches.org/Katy+Taylor/Brents-Kim+Neg I debated for Katy Taylor for 4 years. I was the 1A/2N for three of those years and doubles 2s for one. I pretty much went for the K for all my 2NRs, my favorite being the Cap K. I've read many different types of arguments throughout my career, but please don't assume I know what you are talking about without a clear explanation. I have no preference to what arguments I want to hear. I try to be impartial when it comes to the style of argumentation whether it be a K or the politics DA. My judging philosophy is very similar to the philosopy of my former teammate Albert Li so here is a link to his philosophy: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Li%2C+Albert

That being said, we did not read the same arguments in high school, so skip those parts of his philosophy.

Also the following section is copy and pasted from his philosophy:

If you’ve decided there’s a chance I’m going to judge you, here are some more specifics:

On Topicality/procedurals: I default competing interpretations. I think the best standard is predictable limits, insofar as it can usually implicate the internal links to other standards very easily. The portable skills stuff and education always seemed more “meh” to me, but so long as you impact out all your standards then it really doesn’t matter. Reasonability seems to rely a lot on ground/abuse defense, so it might behoove the aff to make those two arguments in conjunction with each other. Cross-ex probably checks most spec arguments.

Specifically on Framework: I’m really open to most framework arguments (I barely debated this at all my senior year, surprisingly). Like on topicality, I like predictable limits on the negative and arguments about pedagogy and stuff on the aff. Framework isn’t topicality; don’t confuse it as such. Make fun of asinine interp evidence. Institutional engagement arguments likely beg the question of the efficacy of institutions. For the aff, I don't care at all if you're the least topical aff I've ever heard in my life. I'll leave it up to the neg to decide how they want to engage.

On DAs: There isn’t much to say other than that the straight turn in the 1AR is so underused. I love impact turns/internal link turns (not unique to DAs, but I figured I’d just drop that here). I don’t like the politics DA, but, like so many others, have come to accept it as a necessary evil. You’ll make me like it more if you have specific/multiple links/internal links. That applies to every position.

On CPs: There’s been an increasing tension between the theoretical legitimacy of counterplans and the need to deal with smaller affs. I think that debate deserves a bit more contention despite my hatred of bad theory arguments. You should probably have a solvency advocate – it demonstrates good research practices but also checks back against a ton of theoretical concerns. I like when people point out atrocious wording in the text. I wasn’t really much a CP debater, but I can appreciate it when people bust out really cool competition tricks and solve the shit out of the aff.

On Ks: I really like one off strategies. My most common block division was the K in the 2NC and case in the 1NR. The framework debate has devolved mostly into semantics that usually ends up as a middle of the road split. I think K teams need to go more aggressively for a denial of the aff on epistemological/whatever else grounds and policy teams need to go more aggressively for a denial of things like reps-based args in the interest of fairness. The alt’s pretty important, but not necessary to win if you’re winning a ton of case turns. That being said, RECOGNIZE WHEN IT’S A HORRIBLE IDEA TO KICK THE ALT. I don’t mind longer overviews, but if you find yourself saying “that was in the overview” a lot on the line by line then you might wanna consider some reorganization. Also don’t lie to me about how long your goddamn overview is. Shower me with links – quote their evidence and cross-ex.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">On Cheating: Pretty serious accusation with serious consequences. If you accuse you better have evidence for it. If I conclude cheating’s gone down then I’ll grant lowest speaks to either one or both members, depending on the nature of the infraction. The accusers win and the cheaters lose. I’ll try to give speaks to the other team accordingly.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">On General Speaking Stuff: Please change your speed/tone according to the importance of an argument or between tags/evidence. Don’t spread through analytical stuff; I think people forget that the non-machine nature of the judge means that they will generally pick up on those changes and note them more readily. The rebuttals deserve less speed and more efficiency. If you can flag the important stuff not by explicitly saying it but by implying it through your speaking, you will get fantastic speaks.