Kung,+Steven

I debated policy (1992-1995) on the national circuit for Kempsville High School in Virginia Beach, clearing consistently to varsity elimination rounds, and attended the Dartmouth Debate Institute for three summers. I also coached policy debate for Centreville High School in Clifton, VA. I directed the documentary, SPEW: The World of Competitive Debate, which you can find illegally uploaded on the Internets.

Policy:

I am a tabula rasa judge, a blank slate. That means ANYTHING GOES. As long as you argue your point well, I will buy it. If you tell me to vote policymaker, I'll do it. If you slap a voter on a performative contradiction, I'll do it. If you tell me to vote against the team with the ugliest penmanship, I'll do it. I'll even vote on T! Just be sure you justify your paradigm. Saying "reverse voter" doesn't actually make it a reverse voter. Tell me exactly what to vote on and why. Spoon feed me the round.

Speed: I like it fast and furious. But if I have to yell "clear" I'm gonna have to dock ya speaker points.

The criticism: My high school was one of the early adopters of the kritik and kritikal affirmatives in the early 90s. So yeah, I live for the mind goo. Kritiks are a big deal to me - don't run multiples ones that contradict each other and please don't treat 'em like disads. The criticism does not have a "link" or an "impact" - that's bad debate and ironically, a misunderstanding of the fundamental assumptions of the the kritik. Treat kritiks as the a priori, beautiful arguments they are. I don't even call it the "K." If someone did that to me in round, I'd run a counter-kritik of rhetoric/reductionism!

The Flow: I vote on the flow and rarely look at cards after round. Debate is ultimately about persuasion so all I go with at the end of the round is my written record of your arguments. If I do have to look at evidence, be prepared for some nasty interventionism. Dropped arguments are unforgivable. Go line-by-line. Do not engage the other team in a senseless card war.

Topicality: It is always about the interpretation of the resolution. Actual in-round abuse is neither a necessary nor a sufficient reason to vote on T. This is my bias, but you can always convince me otherwise for the purposes of the round.

LD:

I've only been judging LD for a season so my understanding of it is primarily through the policy debate lens. I am told that I am closest to comparative worlds, but as stated above, I will vote on anything. Here, I also vote according to the flow.