Kim,+Leonardo

=__Bio __= toc Leonardo Kim Chaminade '15 CLU '19

Hi, I'm the other Leo Kim! I debated at Chaminade High School in California for four years. Now I coach there and at La Reina High School.

=__For Policy __=

//Short Version (tl;dr) //
You do you. Don't do you if you don't know how to explain your argument and contextualize it. Please go for impact turns. They're a lost art and I will vote on a significant amount. Don't be afraid to go for impact turns against K affs. Tech > Truth. (Unless impacted otherwise, which is still pretty techy) Clarity > Speed, and god damn, slow down on theory. Debate is a game, but that doesn't mean games can't have real world implications. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Prep ends when flash is out/email is sent (I've been more lenient with this one, but will enforce it when I deem necessary) <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Don't be rude/offensive. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Be funny plz <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">CX is binding. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I think Terminal Defense is a thing <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">A conditional world means presumption flips aff.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Email me at [|leokiminardo@gmail.com] if you have any questions. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Yes, include me on the email chain. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">My wiki, if you don't know which way I lean.

__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Generic __
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">My RFDs will most likely be pretty lengthy, because I was the debater who would postround for 15 minutes (even after a win), just asking how to improve. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I've lost enough debates to know how to win them, so I hope that you as debaters would know better than I do. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">You have infinite prep time to improve your clarity, speed, tech, and overall knowledge, so please utilize it. If it shows, I'll reward it. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Please write my ballot for me, I'm dumb. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Debate is the most fun game I've ever played, please don't ruin it on purpose.

__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">K Affs __
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Unfortunately for most framework teams, I'm super susceptible to ethos. But I also think framework is a valuable debate to have. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I've never read a critical aff, but I've definitely become more willing to listen to them. I definitely think that there is a place for them in debate, I'd just prefer it to be relevant to the topic.

__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Policy Affs __
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I've heard this countless times throughout debate, so I'll repeat it here:

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 14px;">DEFEND YOUR HOUSE.
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I'll be most comfortable judging these kinds of debates. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Read cards specific to your aff because I don't want to read cards that aren't specific to your aff.

__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">T/Framework __
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">If T is genocide, strike me. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I evaluate it like a disad so you should impact out arguments beyond words like "fairness" or "education". <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I like the topic, and default to reasonability, because most of the time, I don't think that a plan is so untopical that it hurt your ability to debate. __**<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">However, space elevator is always T. **__

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In regards to Framework, I will definitely be thinking something by the end of the 1AC. Whether it's a good thought or not is up to you to decide for me.

__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Disads __
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Go for it. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Politics is a real thing. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Case specific disads sound cool as hell, too bad I've never seen one! /endsalt

__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Counterplans __
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Pretty legit. I think process counterplans are fucked up, but unless there's a theoretical reason to reject it, I'll evaluate it. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">You should probably read a solvency advocate. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Answer the perm. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Have a net benefit and make sure it doesn't link. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">The period PIC is a bad argument, but, tech over truth.

__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Kritiks __
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">My partner and I were known for being the Cap K team (that was not St. Vincent). If that tells you anything, the furthest into K Lit I've gotten into was Critical Race Studies. After the 1NC CX, I'll probably be trying to piece together whatever it is, but I expect a crystallization of what the argument is in the block. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">The link should be the easiest part to win, but you should still contest it, especially since the aff is not the USfg. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">TELL ME WHAT YOUR ALTERNATIVE IS. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">If fiat is illusory, an unexplained alt is probably worse. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I still don't get why "Perm: Do the alt in all other instances" doesn't solve

__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Theory __
__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Slow down plz __ <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">As Jacob Hurwitz once said, "The only thing worse than a loss of Hegemony is conditionality". <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">As a 2a, I'm very aff leaning on condo. If your 2AC doesn't have conditionality in it (when it's necessary), that's typically the first question in my RFD. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">2 worlds should typically be good enough for the negative. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I evaluate this in offense/defense, so tech and impacts are definitely necessary here. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I'm down to vote on MOST things, even "no neg fiat," but don't make my job ridiculously impossible. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I will not vote for prefs theory. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Theory crowds out substance is not an argument. This is not LD. Deal with it.

//<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">How to increase Speaker Points //
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">For the most part, this describes most of my feelings about distributing speaker points. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">However, in most other instances, I would default to this list that my former Coach, Jordan Trafton's indicates:

__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Bribery __
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">This exists in the real world. I think it's educational to simulate it.

I like skittles and bottled water :-)

__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Ending speeches early __
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">THIS IS SO UNDERRATED, PLEASE DO IT __<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> If you don't have anything to say then don't stretch it out. You don't have 8 minutes to speak in most interviews, congressional speeches (I'd assume), and other important things. Use the structure of your speeches as a rhetorical device. __

__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">TKO __
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Technical Knockout. If you are 100% you have won the debate, call a TKO, and tell me the argument that wins the round. I will stop the debate, evaluate it, and if you are correct, you and your partner will receive two 30s. If you are wrong, you will receive 0s. Do you dare take the challenge?

__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Jokes __
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Make them! <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> I love puns, so the Oceans topic was good to me. If you're funny, I'll reward you. If you're not, RIP.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Be nice. Be friendly. Introduce yourself to the other team. Have fun :)

__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Extra points for knocking off anyone on this hitlist: __ <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Jeremiah Cha <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Chris Mills <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Lev Sugarman <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Parker Coon <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">James Allan

=__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">For LD __=

__<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Everything up top should apply here. __

Plz flow moar. I literally have to waste 15 minutes every debate because you flow off the speech doc and have to delete everything you didn't read. That's a waste of both our time.

ADDENDUM 8/20/2016 **I'm absolutely done with debaters wasting time with this nonsense, if you have to ask your opponent to delete everything they didn't read, I will destroy your speaker points because you didn't flow. If you're a debater who does this as common practice, you might want to strike me.**

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I will evaluate most arguments. Exceptions are racist/sexist/homophobic args. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;"> However, I have a VERY high threshold on theory. I think it's killing an already unfair form of debate, and is a cop out for most debaters. I am of the belief that theory crowds out substance in LD. When it comes to this topic, judge intervention is good, especially when most theory is stupid, a time suck, and is anti-educational. I will be uncomfortable if you just go for theory, so please try to make LD educational for me. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">My brightline for acceptable theory will be along the lines of Conditionality and PICs bad. For actual reasonable theory, I'm heavily aff leaning because of inherent time biases. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">EG: You read "no theory" theory, the other debater says "reasonability" once, and I evaluate substance for the rest of the debate. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">If I judge more LD Debates, then I'll put down a checklist of things that I believe are non-arguments.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Disclosure Theory
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Plan Texts Bad
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">T is an RVI
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">No Ethics theory
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">No a priori ethical considerations
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Spreading Bad (As a K, I will evaluate it, but it's an uphill battle when your A Strat is that k.)
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Normative Ethics Garbage Specification ??????