I debated LD and PF in hs, APDA in uni. Currently studying applied math, biology, and computational medicine at Johns Hopkins
 Pronouns: He/Him
 Email Chain/Contact: ikhyunkim2138@gmail.com | Facebook
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Quick Prefs
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Note: For PF teams, I am comfortable with Ks, Theory, etc. just execute it well...please
 1-2: K/LARP3-4: Phil/T/Theory5-6: Tricks (please just strike me)
 It seems like there is a tendency to pref based on speaks given so here are some quick stats on that
 LD
 Avg Aff Speaks: 28.9Avg Neg Speaks: 28.8Avg Overall Speaks: 28.8Side Skew: 50.575% Aff, 49.425% Neg
 PF
 1st Speaker Avg Speaks: 28.82nd Speaker Avg Speaks: 28.7Side Skew: 42.500% Aff, 57.500% Neg (idek what's going on here tbh)
 CX
 Avg Speaks: 29.1
 Last Updated: 10.22.2022
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Defaults
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 • I default to truth-testing
 • I default to semantics > pragmatics
 • I default to epistemic modesty but I don't mind using epistemic confidence; just warrant why I should.
 • I default to competing interps. Feel free to run RVIs when deemed appropriate but warrant why I should err towards accepting the RVI.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Non-T
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 • No matter what you do, please have a non-arbitrary role of the ballot else I will likely struggle in terms of framing the debate on both sides. Make sure you explain how your case functions in the round and explain why it's important through the ROB/J/S. That said, explain why we should reject/interpret the resolution differently.
 • Aff, please respond to TVA as too many rounds with these types of affs have been lost because of a dropped interp or dropped TVA. Conversely, neg, please run TVA on these types of cases and it will make your work a lot easier if you win it. However, TVA is not enough for you to win the round.
 • Cross is binding for me as I do believe that you can garner links/DAs off of the performance of either you and or your opponent even if your evidence says something else. That said, I'd like to emphasize that for these debates that the form of the evidence presented becomes far less restricted and there isn't some inherent hierarchy between them so don't disregard them.
 • The permutation tends to be more awkward to both understand and evaluate in these debates so I'd suggest that you overexplain the perm to make it clear. This includes how you sequence the perm.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 K
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 • Ks that only link to the aff’s FW and not to their advocacy feel awkward to me, so take that with a grain of salt.
 • I default to perms being a test of competition rather than advocacy. You can try to change this, but you'll have to overexplain to me what it means for a perm to function as advocacy and clearly characterize the advocacy of the perm.
 • PF teams, I love hearing Ks but only if they are well done. This means you should know what you are talking about and have a deep understanding of the literature you are reading. That said, please don't be a prick by reading a K in front of a team that clearly has no experience with progressive debate (just use your common sense, it's not that hard to figure this out).
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 T/Theory
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 • I don’t have defaults w.r.t. to voter questions such as DTD vs DTA, fairness/education being a voter, etc. It is YOUR job to tell me why your shell is a voting issue.
 • I don’t particularly have an issue with RVIs. Feel free to go for an RVI, but I will need convincing on why you get them in the first place, characterize/construct it for me, etc.
 • Please don't run frivolous theory in front of me. If the round becomes messy because of it, then your speaks will suffer.
 • PF teams, while I am a supporter of theory in PF, please please please don't read shells unless there is/are an actual abuse story behind them. If not, your speaks will suffer.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 LARP
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 • I generally am not a fan of conditional counterplans especially since I feel like the neg time skew arguments can be really strong. That said, I am fine with listening to them and will vote on them just please don't be dodgy by not clearly answering whether the counterplan is conditional or not.
 • If the neg is running a conditional counterplan, I won't kick it unless it's clear that the counterplan is kicked. This means that just because squo is better than aff doesn't mean I default to voting neg if it wasn't made clear that the conditional counterplan is kicked.
 • My position on perms is the same in LARP strategies as it is for Ks.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Phil
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 • If you are comfortable doing so, feel free to message me on FaceBook or email me if you want to ask if I know your philosopher well. Otherwise, don't assume that I am well-read up on the specific philosophy that you're reading and do the work of walking me through with it.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Tricks
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ... <- this summarizes my thoughts and feelings about tricks, take that as you will
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Other Points of Interest
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 • Aff/Pro should have a speech doc ready to be emailed by round start time. Flight 2 should enter the room at Flight 2 start time.
 • If both sides are fine with it, I’m fine with granting flex prep. Don’t be rude about it, or else your speaks may suffer. Don’t take too long flashing prep unless you want your prep docked along with your speaks
 • Engaging with the tagline alone ≠ engaging with the argument or the card. This is a huge pet peeve of mine so please don't just engage with the tagline but engage with the internal warranting of the cards being presented. Cards don't exist simply to back up the claims made by taglines but they have within them their own layers of argumentation which is centralized by a thesis that links to the tagline. TL;DR respect what the authors are actually saying especially given that probably over 80% of your speech is their words verbatim.
 • If your speech includes abbreviations or acronyms, please explain them first. Never assume that I know what they mean.
 • While I recognize there's no obligation to share your analytics, I will award +.3 speaker points for those speeches including all/nearly all analytics in the speech doc AND that are organized in a coherent manner.
 • I tend to make facial expressions that reflect how well I am processing an argument when it's being read i.e. if I am confused then I'll look confused and if I think the argument is good then my face will show this.I apologize in advance if my expressions confuse you; strike me if this is an issue.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Concluding Remarks
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 If you have any questions for me before the round starts about my paradigm, please ask after all the debaters are in the room so I don't have to repeat myself. Quick shoutouts/other paradigms that may be worth your time looking at of those who have influenced me as a debater, judge, and a person include Anne-Marie Hwang, Adam Tomasi, Sim Guerrero-Low, Michael Koo, Martin Sigalow, and Annie Wang I am more than happy to explain my decision whether it be in person after the round or through email/social media. Thanks for reading, good luck and have fun!