minkoko@college.harvard.edu
Hello! My name is Min, and I'm currently a sophomore at Harvard studying government, economics, and social theory. I competed in debate all four years of high school, where I focused primarily on World Schools-- but am familiar with PF and IE events as well. I currently am a member of the Harvard College Debating Union, where I compete in American Parliamentary.
General norms

Please be respectful and reasonable. High school debate can get really nasty at times, and we're all here to have a fun and educational experience. Don't use personal attacks against your opponents, use prejudiced language, or make sweeping generalizations (all of which are signs of poor argumentation as well).
I am not a huge fan of spreading. However, I understand the need to get all the arguments in for formats like PF and LD, so I can definitely listen to fast-paced speeches.
Dislike theory

Public Forum

It's been a while since I've done PF, so I might not be as familiar with the timing/prep/showing cards aspects.
Speed is okay if you need it to fit in quality arguments.
I dislike evidence wars. Don't nitpick at the validity of one source back and forth.
WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Impact weighing is crucial.
Roadmaps are helpful. Anything that makes my life as a judge better will help with a flow, which will help with a ballot.
I come from World Schools, where reasonability is king. However, in PF I have to consider all points on the flow especially if the other team drops it. That being said, just because you manage to link your tiny policy change to nuclear war or climate change or AI or whatever doesn't mean I will give you the win automatically (well, if the opposing team actually does its job). Low probability high impact risks does not necessarily mean the biggest impact in the round. In these instances, weigh probabilities as well.
CX is mostly useless for me.

LD

Truth be told, I have never debated in LD. I have seen a few rounds, but am far from an expert at the format. I am somewhat familiar with the vocabulary such as "criterion"
Speed is fine, full-on spreading might mean I miss a few of your points during a speech.
I have a background in political philosophy and social theory, so feel free to utilize those constructs when discussing values.
Low probability high impact risks does not necessarily imply automatic win--weigh probabilities and magnitudes as well.
Standard debate procedures apply- weigh impacts, consider the two worlds, give roadmaps etc.

Congress

Never competed in Congress but have judged it before
I will rely on the PO to keep things orderly, not too familiar with parliamentary procedure
A good speech can be many things--keep it organized (typical intros, arguments, conclusion)
I enjoy rhetorical flairs and style--it keeps things interesting in an otherwise very long session
One thing that annoys me if the speeches keep saying the same thing or same argument over and over again. Be creative and come up with some novel arguments (even if it's nonstandard, it's better than you regurgitating a previous speaker's points)
I expect later speakers to respond to the statements earlier speakers have made

World Schools
I absolutely love World Schools and it's my favorite format of debate because it's accessible, current, and meaningfully engages with real world issues--so I hope rounds continue to operate in that way! I mainly operated as a First and Reply speaker.

I think tabula rasa judging is a bit vague at times, and this paradigm opens up the potential for a lot of weird stuff said in the round to stand. For the most part I am tabula rasa, so YOU should do the work of telling me WHAT to prioritize when voting. But because reasonability is an inherent part of WSD I'm not going to let really bizarre stuff dictate the round, even if a team drops that argument. I'd rather a team makes an argument on reasonability than me intervening.
Assume that I as the judge am a moderately well-informed member of society (like a New York Times Reader). Explain anything requiring specialized knowledge out to me, but there's no need to tell me that India is a country in Asia or that the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Try to adhere to traditional norms of speaker roles--aka first speaker offers the first 2 substantives and potentially a model, second speaker focuses more on line by line rebuttal, third speaker on collapsing and weighing. However, I'm not going to penalize you if you buck the norm and have innovative argument construction.
Ideally, POIs should be offered around every 30 seconds and each speaker takes 2.
Use global examples if relevant to the topic.
One of my pet peeves is when people try to fill up the whole 8 minutes of a speech by repeating stuff they already said. If you find there is nothing more to be said, please just end the speech.
This isn't a huge problem in WSD but I also hate evidence wars. Nitpicking on a particular warrant isn't particularly helpful to me as a judge, and focusing on bigger picture ideas will most likely be a better use of your time.
Be mindful of actors/stakeholders and voters. Look at clashes in the round. Clarify the different worlds of Prop and Opp.
Be mindful of both practical and principle concerns, and smart WSD teams will focus on the area that is stronger to their side.
WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Impact weighing is crucial.
I enjoy creative arguments that suggest that you researched well and thought about these ideas deeply. Of course I will be expecting stock arguments in a particular motion, but an innovative argument that makes me see the round in a new light will be rewarded. On the other hand, arguments can get TOO creative and have no basis in political or economic reality.
Ballot: Content will focus on evidence-based reasoning and whether your impacts outweighed the other team. Style will focus on well-structured arguments and clarity. Strategy will focus on how well the three of you work as a team, good POI strategy, and the ability to capitalize on your opponents' weaknesses as they appear in the round.