Jump to content
downward747

Mountain Region Judging Philosophies

Recommended Posts

I don't know how well my schedule will align with debate back in Colorado, but on the off chance it does, I figure it couldn't hurt to post one of these.

 

My name is Ryan Shaffer, and I'm a freshman at Claremont McKenna College in CA, doing National Parliamentary debate, a form that has much in common in terms of argumentation with CX. I did debate at Creek for four years, doing LD for the last three. I have a great deal of experience with all three debate forms, however, and am well-versed in everything in CX. So:

 

In general, I'll flow anything and vote off anything on the flow, although you have to meet the low, low standards of "your argument must make a modicum of sense, e.g. I won't accept 'Our plan is that Superman will run in a hamster wheel powering a turbine that will provide all American power needs'", and "you need to label your voters". I value impact calculus very highly when trying to determine harms-disads, but I can also vote off Ks and the like. If you make those your key argument, show how they are more important than the impact calculus. Not complicated.

 

T - I will flow T and will (potentially) flow it, but I have a philosophical problem with the impacts of T arguments. Normally, T impacts fall back on "vote against b/c they kill debate". The problem with this is that the only way this impact makes sense is if it's impossible for you to fight back, but if you make even a single response, you're proving to me that you have room to maneuver in spite of the argument made to the contrary, which undermines your T. Same goes for Predictability. I'm of the opinion that there usually aren't enough warrants for arguments for educational merit that don't fall under the "can't debate" category, but if I see convincing ones, I'm all for that kind of T. If your opponents drop T, then obviously it's votable, but know that I'm willing to wash T fairly easily.

 

Spec - I'm not looking for plans filled with specificity. Not being able to put a very specific dollar amount on your plan isn't a reason to vote against ("we're gonna need $24.45 billion dollars...") because it's unreasonable to expect that much from you. At the same time, I would like to know basics, e.g. implementation, funding source, etc. Money doesn't grow on trees, so pulling money out of thin air doesn't work. I don't want to know how much exactly it is, but it had better exist.

 

DAs - Impact calculus. Make sure you meet a minimum burden of proof, and make sure your cards say what you say they say.

 

CPs - Go ahead. Make sure you push the relative advantages, because that's your strongest front with a CP. Just saying "this is an alternative, therefore you can't go Aff" isn't good enough. CPs are first and foremost about opportunity cost, so you had better impact it.

 

Ks - Sure, as long as you prove it, link it, and impact it.

 

Theory - Your theory has to make sense. I'm open to all kinds of theory arguments, and creativity, while obviously not a reason to vote, gets you theoretical points in my book, provided it makes sense. In the same way, I'm not going to reject theory based simply on how unorthodox they are, how abusive they may be, etc.

 

New in the 2 - I won't flow anything new in the 2AR on fairness. If it's new in the 2NR, you'd better make sure you're making it clear why you're going new in the 2NR.

 

Speed/Timing - I'm fine with speed, so long as you're not slurring words. Enunciation is always helpful. If you're going too fast, I put my pen down. I also adopt the philosophy that there are no time extensions beyond speech length. You can keep talking all you want into the overtime, but I won't flow anything after time has elapsed. This is an issue of fairness - I've had plenty of stories of debates in which someone would purposefully talk into the overtime to get an edge. It bothers me immensely.

 

CX - Don't flow it. I'm more than willing to call someone on it, but you need to mention it - I won't do your job for you. Or, "impacts or it didn't happen".

Edited by Greyfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since i will be back in state for State i figured i would write down my complete paradigm.

 

T: I hate T, I spent many an hours senior trying to kill T. HOWEVER, I understand that it is a great argument, and the fact that i hate it does not mean i will not vote on it, my threshold for T is about the same for me as theory. Which means that if you are going for T, it better be T and the T related args in the 2NR

 

K: I like K's, they are fun! I have read a LOT of debate related philosophical lit, and a fair amount on this topic, that being said if u really know a K dont assume that i know it as well as you do, because u should know more about ur K than me. Dont try and BS me its just annoying, and dont run a K when u dont know what it says . K's need to have an alt, i dont care if it is a dance, poem, card, or breaking a two by four, just ensure that i know it is an alt and how it functions.

 

CP: fine, consult, PIC, agent, they are all cool with me. Just make sure that they are a better option than the plan, I may be swayed that topical CP's are not legit.

DA: fine, just ensure that it really does outweigh in the framework that the debate is functioning in.

Case: defense is good, Offense is best, u wont win my ballot with just defensive args.

 

Speed: Slower on tags/author, if u have to pick one to be slower on go for author, i keep a good flow i am sure that i can keep up with u on a comp, if i dont have it well, a little slower overall. Aaron says it very well "I prefer a quick debate to a slow one, but I also prefer an in depth slower debate to a blipy fast debate between teams trying to use speed for the sake of using speed. Feel free to read a bunch of off-case positions in front of me, but you should probably start condensing in the block, and even more in the 2nr. Also, speed without any clarity will hurt you. If I'm part of a panel, I won't penalize you for adapting to a slower/faster judge."

 

Theory: i am ok with it, i will vote for it, any of it, that includes unconditionally is bad, it might be hard for you too win on that but i will vote for it if i think u won, address their arguments, and impact it out. also make sure that u go for Theory, much like T

 

stupid stuff: go for it.

 

this was really quick if i notice that i forgot something i will edit this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im going to structure this like Zafar's since he is my idol and I will probably name my children after him.

Ahhem

 

T: If you know your not topical and someone runs T, at least act like your somehow acess the topic. Ive judged a few rounds where the 2ac basically gave up with their shitty T answers. But anyway, T sucks a lot and Im not a fan of voting for it. 2nr must be all T if you want to win it. Id prefer you only going for T if the 2ac screwed the pooch or you are just getting owned on ever other flow. Impact that shit out. I'll still vote for it.

 

K: I really dont like reading books but the ones i did read in high school were mainly philosophical authors related to debate. give me like one word at the top of the 1ac/nc that tells me what k you are running ie "next off bioopower *extended gasp for air* a) plan is biopower blah blah" Alternatives are cool, but not needed if you can justify it. Performance is awesome, I'd really like to see a black rage arg run in colorado soon.

 

From Zafar: (its all cool but dont be a douche)

"CP: fine, consult, PIC, agent, they are all cool with me. Just make sure that they are a better option than the plan, I may be swayed that topical CP's are not legit.

DA: fine, just ensure that it really does outweigh in the framework that the debate is functioning in.

Case: defense is good, Offense is best, u wont win my ballot with just defensive args."

 

Speed: There is a difference between speed and yelling like a coke addict while hes having soup. be clear. I can flow most people on the circuit so im good with however fast you would like. I will try not to discrimiate if you go slower. In the spirit of quoting Aaron... "I prefer a quick debate to a slow one, but I also prefer an in depth slower debate to a blipy fast debate between teams trying to use speed for the sake of using speed. Feel free to read a bunch of off-case positions in front of me, but you should probably start condensing in the block, and even more in the 2nr. Also, speed without any clarity will hurt you. If I'm part of a panel, I won't penalize you for adapting to a slower/faster judge." On a side note, I have a history of ear infections so ill let you know if you have to yell at me so i can hear you. Shit sucks

 

Theory: I've pretty much made up my mind about what is theoretically legit up to this point. Doesnt mean you cant win your shitty args. If you answer theory well and I decide its legit then your all good. Sloppy theory flows suck, keep it clean and make real arguments and not the novice year "1 is time skew we lose time, 2 is ground its not fair" theory block args. I would say impact it out but ive given up hope on people listening to me.

 

stupid stuff: Go for it and i might have to insert a cactus in your anal cavity, you could still win a ballot tho.

 

this was really quick and I am perfect so there is no chance of an edit, ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the very slim chance that you find me judging you at the one tournament a year that I sometimes judge at:

 

My name is Seth Ellsworth. I debated long ago for Rawlins and less long ago for the University of Wyoming. I coached there too, and still judge lots of college rounds.

 

Don't go fast in front of me if you can't go fast. Ways to tell if you shouldn't go fast in front of me: I am not flowing your constructive speeches and I am looking quite angry. If I yell clear 3 times. Otherwise, whatever.

 

Any argument is fine with me. Doesn't mean its a good argument and that you will win on it.

 

You will not win with defense alone.

 

I like the funny.

 

I like to get up and walk around during prep and cross x. I am paying attention, but my back and knees hurt if I am forced to sit in small chairs.

 

Don't use all of your time repeating yourself. If you are that far ahead, or you don't have anything to say, sit down. It will save you at least one speaker point.

 

I don't like racism, sexism, homophobia, violence, or rudeness.

 

Don't openly tool your partner around. Don't yell at your partner unless they are going to lose the round for you.

 

I don't keep a running clock. I disclose if its allowed. I don't like writing out ballots unless I have to.

 

My speaker points are as follows

 

25 and below: You did something offensive and I don't like you as a person

25.5-26.5: You have barely the technical skills to compete

27-27.5: Getting there, but lots of work to do

28-28.5: You are a good debater, and you probably won the round

29: You are an excellent debater and you made at least two very strategic arguments

29.5: Your speech inspired me to vote for you, you made two very good strategic moves, and you probably made me laugh, and you didn't make many speaking mistakes

30: You are Buddy Khan. This means you are perfect. You probably won't get this from me, unless I have a migraine and you grant a double turn.

 

For high school rounds only: If I happen to be on a panel with two lay judges, two stocks judges, or two judges with paradigms vastly different than mine, I am perfectly fine adapting to their paradigm for the sake of the round. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have offense, it means you should not just go for my ballot. You will probably lose if the other team is smart. I will vote on stock issues if I have to, and if that is what the debate is about. I used to debate in Wyoming, and I know how it goes. You will be much happier being on the top of a 2-1 than the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as Creek East is coming around now....

 

I thought I would let you know that Patrick O'Brien is actually

 

Cabeza Roja(aka pellirojo)

 

same as Tabula Rasa.(this is the latin translation for read head.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...