Choi,+Derek

Judge Philosophy Derek Choi

Glenbrook North '14 Harvard College '18

I debated for four years at Glenbrook North, and the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. I have been told that my standard for an “argument” is depressingly low, but generally the worst arguments are the easiest to beat, especially when armed with the truth. Without exception, debate arguments are terrible, but I do not believe that the entry of my name into TRPC empowers me with the wherewithal and expertise to decide which particular arguments are the worst. Therefore, little explanation is necessary when an argument is dropped. (Another way of saying this is that all arguments are true until contested.) I should add that just because I read certain arguments in high school -- terrible process counterplans, ASPEC, no neg fiat, bad affs with nonexistent internal link chains -- does not mean I have any special place in my heart for them.

Kritiks (since that’s the only reason anyone reads philosophies): I will do my best to evaluate these as fairly as possible, and I have no qualms about voting neg on a dropped trick. Nevertheless, I’ve exclusively had these debates from the aff’s perspective, so I’d imagine I would be more sympathetic to the aff.

Non-traditional affs: I believe very strongly that the affirmative should defend a plan and only the results of its hypothetical enactment. This does not mean I will automatically vote neg on framework, just that I find most all neg framework arguments to be far more persuasive than their responses.

Predispositions in the absence of an argument to the contrary: - No post-round conditionality - No counterplan link differential - Presumption is toward less change - Offense/defense is good

Non-negotiable rules: - Clipping or cross-reading. They are cheating and as such will result in the lowest possible points and a loss. An accusation of cheating stops the debate. - The rules for the tournament (i.e. speech times, prep time, etc.)

Questions: derekkchoi (at) gmail (dot) com.