I am non-interventionist.  It is up to the debaters to persuade me that they/he/she have won the round.  That being said, do not assume that I understand jargon, acronyms or shorthand as substitutes for fully developed arguments.  I have no ideology as to speed, but I will make no apologies if I fail to understand speeches.  In L-D I vote as guided by the ballot and/or league rules.  As a default, LD is a value based debate and I will vote accordingly.  In CX, there is more room for the debaters to define the round.  In PFD, because there is no burden of proof, I will vote in whichever direction I was more persuaded from the outset of the round.

Online Debate: Please turn your camera on for speeches (if possible). I don't care if you have your cams off when you're not talking.

Decorum: Be kind and respectful. I will immediately drop teams for any racist, sexist, homophobic, and other discriminatory actions.

Content Warnings: If you are reading a case regarding sexual assault, human trafficking, mental health, etc. you must have a content warning before the round starts and provide your phone number for anonymous contact. Failing to do so will cause me to drop you.

+++PF+++

Tech vs Truth: I am tech over truth unless you make arguments that are racist/homophobic/ableist/etc..

Evidence: Warranting every argument is the easiest way to win my ballot. I don't care that Mark 18 tells you that the world will explode in 5 years due to gun control unless you explain to me logically why that card makes sense. In a similar vein, if you contest evidence you must explain why I should prefer your evidence logically, don't just tell me "X card is more recent so prefer it."

Speed: I would prefer you speak at a reasonable pace (~250 wpm), but if you go fast (300+ wpm) I would like a copy of your case so I can follow along (I also expect you and your opponent to exchange cases for fairness). If you spread, slow for tags and warrant.

Off-Time Roadmaps: Don't care if you do it or not, you don't need to ask me.

Weighing: Weighing should start early in the round. I appreciate metaweighing and framing debate (ex. I like structural violence framing).

Summary/FF: Extend warrants over cards. If you tell me to extend a specific card without explaining 1) what that card is and 2) the logic of how that supports your argument I probably won't evaluate it since there's a good chance I'll have no clue what you're talking about. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary. Absolutely no new arguments after 1st summary!

Theory: I'll evaluate it, but I generally dislike theory unless it's extremely obvious your opponent made a huge abuse.

K: K is fine with me, but make sure you explain thoroughly if it's a more niche K. I will not vote on K if you are using it to get an easy win against a team that has no clue what you're talking about (I'll still vote on your other arguments, but if the K is the only offence you have you will end up losing).

Disclosure: I will disclose as long as the tournament allows me to.

Evidence: If a specific piece of evidence is highly contested throughout the round, I will call for it and make a decision off of what I see. Paraphrased evidence makes me sad so please don't do it.

Speaker Points: I give speaks starting from 28. You will get <28 for being excessively rude, sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, etc.

Timing: Time yourself. I'm pretty bad at remembering to set my timer. Do not hold your timer up during your opponent's speech if they go over time, it's pretty obnoxious.

+++LD+++

Email: kueyoungkim@gmail.com

I'm not an LD debater, so all the morality stuff is foreign to me. I have a general understanding of value/criterion debate, but please try to explain all the morality framing you bring up. K/T/Theory is fine, I will vote off of an RVI. No spikes or tricks.

+++Policy+++

Email: kueyoungkim@gmail.com

General: I have a basic understanding of Policy and should be able to follow most basic arguments (will vote on pretty much anything). Just explain everything to me thoroughly and I'm happy.

DA: I prefer good DA debate over K/T/etc.

K: I'm not super familiar with a lot of K literature so explain it thoroughly. Aff K/Planless affs are fine by me but you should have a really clear explanation why I should vote for you/why it's necessary.

Spreading: Slow for tags and warrant when spreading. Off-time roadmaps are a must.

Spikes/Tricks: I won't vote on any spikes or tricks.

Performative cases: Make sure you explain framework well.

LD and PF: Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.

Congress: As a scorer or Parli, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.

My strength is as a speech judge, so I prefer debate rounds where strong communication is utilized. I typically go into my first round not knowing background on the topic so I can be prepared to be convinced. All other things being equal, I am likely to vote on impacts. Don't expect to win me over by niggling about definitions. I value: roadmaps, clarity, evidence, and respectful argumentation. Dislikes: spreading, gish galloping (I admit I had to look that one up, I just knew I wasn't going to like it. Yup. Don't do that).

In debate, please ensure that I can understand the words you are speaking. If you are speaking too rapidly for me to understand you, I will ask you to slow down. If you continue to be difficult to understand, that hurts your chances of winning the round, as I won't give you credit for arguments you make, but I cannot decipher. If you're speaking rapidly and your diction is sharp, all is well. Slurring or mumbling hurt you.

To the degree to which it is possible, I strive for mens rea. I will judge the round based on what is actually said in the round. I may comment on lost opportunities, but the decision comes from the arguments presented, not from anything I fill in from my own experience.