Kim,+Justin

I debated LD for 3 years for Princeton High School (NJ), with 2 on the national circuit. I was coached by Jessica Levy and Jacob Nails, so I tend to share similar views with them. Most of my paradigm is copied off Jacob's (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Nails%2C+Jacob) anyway.

__**Short Version**__ I don't like underdeveloped or blippy arguments. I think theory is way overused. Beyond that, I don't have a strong preference what you do. Off the wall positions are fine.

I haven't debated since I graduated, so start out 70% speed and get faster. I'll call "slow" if you are going to fast for me.

__ **General** __ 1. Speed: __ I want to hear the warrants in your evidence. __ I will call "clear" as many times as is necessary, but your speaks may suffer if it takes more than once for you to adapt.

2. I will ignore any argument that I didn't understand // the first time it was made // even if it becomes clear in rebuttals. This means you are responsible for your clarity. I often call for cards after the round, but you won't get any credit for arguments in your evidence that I did not flow in your speech.

3. I'm not picky about extensions, but please do include warrants in them.

4. I'm really not a fan of frivolous theory or tricks. While they may be strategic/fun, I think debate is primarily an educational activity and more often times than not tricks debates seem to take away from that purpose.

__ **Theory/T** __ I think RVIs are justifiable given the time limits of LD. What sort of arguments "trigger" an RVI depends on the warrants for why RVIs are good.

__ Please don't bother reading theoretical reasons to prefer/reject an ethical theory __. This includes: Must Concede FW, May Not Concede FW, Util is Unfair, Only Util is Fair, etc. I might vote for you, but you won't be happy with your speaker points.

__ Dumb or trivial theory shells are probably your quickest route to low speaker points in front of me. __ This may not have been emphasized enough before, so I underlined it.

I agree with competing interpretations in the sense that I think you need comparative offense to win theory, just like any other argument. I don't think that entails "there is always a risk of a violation," "you must have a counter-interp to win theory" or any of the other strange arguments that tend to get grouped under the label "competing interpretations."

You don't need a formal internal link from your standards (ground, time skew, etc.) to the voter. These can be assumed. Most the arguments that debaters make for these claims aren't warranted, anyway.

__ **CPs** __ Not utilized enough in LD. Any CP with a qualified advocate in the lit base is probably OK. Conditionality is debatable. I strongly dislike agent CPs; I think they face both logical and fairness/education issues. PICs and topical counterplans are probably fine if the aff reads a plan.

__ **Philosophy** __ I'm familiar with most of the LD canon. I like hearing novel arguments that haven't been rehashed on previous topics. I'm not well-read in much of continental philosophy.


 * __Kritiks__ **

I am completely open to nontopical affs. I'm not a fan of nontopical negs, however, mostly because the time skew seems way too disadvantageous for the aff.

I don't think "I should get to weigh the aff" is a good response to most kritiks. If your offense doesn't logically apply to the K, I don't think fairness or education is best served by pretending that it applies.

Vague alternatives are bad, and any ambiguity will not work in favor of the K. This goes doubly for "reject" or "vote neg" alts.

I don't think theory necessarily precedes the K or vice versa.

__ **Misc** __

If there's an email chain, please add me to it. My email is: sk6543(at) nyu [dot] edu

Please read the date of your evidence out loud. For philosophy cards, this is not important.

Please read the full name of your author(s). This should go without saying but apparently doesn't. Single author cards should be cited with the author's full last name (Scheper 6 is not a substitute for Scheper-Hughes 6). Two author cards should include both authors (Sunstein and Vermuele 5, not Sunstein 5). For multi-author cards, cite the main author and add "et al." if you'd rather not read the rest (e.g. Brooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth 13 OR Brooks et al. 13, rather than Brooks 13). You can't just pick whichever syllable you like most and pronounce that.

The ability to talk off the cuff is an important aspect of debate, and public speaking in general. To facilitate development of extemporaneous speaking skills, debaters are prohibited from reading pre-written materials in front of me -- this includes cases. If you wish to present expert evidence to support your position, please handwrite it on a 3x5 index card and summarize it in your own words during your speech. These are the only "cards" I will evaluate.

In order to present the card as evidence, please raise your right hand and //calmly// declare the following: "I summon my card." Lack of composure in this process will result in a heavy deduction in speaker points. Additionally, the cards //must// be on 3*5 index cards, as they are the only ones that will fit on the duel disks debaters are expected to be wielding. If you do not have one, consider purchasing one here: //https://www.amazon.com/Mattel-69025-Yu-Gi-Oh-Duel-Accessory/dp/B00009VE2N/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1471922799&sr=8-1&keywords=duel+disk//

Note, only 5 cards may be in play at one time. You may lay cards face down and trigger them in later speeches. Please make sure tricks and theory are labeled as trap cards before the round starts. Failure to do so will result in a heavy deduction in speaker points.

When you activate your "trap" card, please declare 'I activate my trap card!' in a clear, resonant voice. Failure to do so will result in a heavy deduction in speaker points.

Summaries are crucial. Please spend at least half of speech speech on crystallization, including the AC. Big picture debating always trumps line-by-line in my book. In order to discourage debaters from pursuing overly technical strategies, I have decided not to flow. This also means I put a heavy emphasis on persuasion.

I am proud to say that I am very capable of flowing spreading. Here is a video of a very fast debater; I was able to flow around 70% of the speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFOLNdSOWE

Lastly, I follow the traditional LD speaker point scale that is listed on nearly all LD ballots: 25 - average 27 - superb 30 - I don't give these.

Cheers! Justin Kim