Jump to content
Mr.Military

Funniest Judge Comments

Recommended Posts

A judge's RFD against one of our novice teams was this -

 

"Aff said "even if freight transportation is sufficient, why not increase funding and make it better," which implies that funding is your inherent barrier. The policy debate handbook, page 28 I believe, states funding can not be your inherent barrier. The neg needs one stock issue to win and the concern brought up was never dissolved."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a tournament a couple weeks ago, I briefly heard some judges who were *happy* that one of their teams read several minutes of inherency arguments. Those handbook arguments and arguments about gap inherency and all that are made in SD waaaaaaaay too often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Novice semi-finals at Whitman this year.  First judge "Aff didn't really have a lot of solvency, and neg won the terror DA that turned the case, but i don't like the fact that they ran ice age.  I voted aff."

Other two judges "I voted Neg on Ice Age."

I was neg.  Booyah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a prelims round at state:  "the china steel DA is everything I hate about policy debate"...I got 18 speaker points from him.  Fortunately the other judge in that round gave me a 28 and voted us up because the aff mishandled basically every argument we made.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"the china steel DA is everything I hate about policy debate"...

 

Really? Because it seems like a pretty normal argument to me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? Because it seems like a pretty normal argument to me.

Yes, but this is in Indiana where a "normal" 1nc consists of 4 minutes of inherency and then a spending DA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You don't have an actual link to your disad, but you're doing a badass job pulling some kind of jedi mind-trick to make me think there is all the way until the 2NR."

 

Also the judge who denied being a T hack while admitting that we won every part of the policy debate but dropping us on T. 

 

Thought this was hilarious in a round I watched. AFTER the freaking 1AC, the judge interrupts the debate to say the following: "Both teams take 5 minutes, prep-free, to look up my judging philosophy and read it." They did, and based on what they read (I'm not sure what, though I assume something about not liking theory and/or kritiks) the Neg team took prep and switched from 4 off to 2 off.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Neg wasn't topical enough, the aff K wins" (Critical Ontology).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also the judge who denied being a T hack while admitting that we won every part of the policy debate but dropping us on T. 

Lol you don't have to be a T hack to vote on T.  And the fact that you won the rest of the debate maybe means they didn't have case-specific links cuz ya ain't topical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My favorite judge comment was "You need to improve your speaking."

 

Like, honestly don't f**king tell me what to do.

 

 

Wow...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My favorite judge comment was "You need to improve your speaking."

 

Like, honestly don't f**king tell me what to do.

Wow...

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol you don't have to be a T hack to vote on T.  And the fact that you won the rest of the debate maybe means they didn't have case-specific links cuz ya ain't topical

 

We had a pretty common plan text about incentivizing private companies to build high-speed rail. They had specific links for their disads. They also had specific case answers and some pretty killer solvency deficit cards, but their 1N was too slow to get to most of them. They tried to say that we were abusive and there was no literature and other such bullshit, but I even offered to show the judge the speech doc that had all of this stuff they were claiming to not have.

 

Their violations were USFG (pretty easy to answer by defining the word investment), and Increase (something about increase having to be gradual and not all at once? I don't even know.) I forgot to put in the blocks for T-USFG but bullshitted pretty much exactly what they said. The 2N either wasn't paying attention or (more likely) decided to be a complete asshole and act like I hadn't answered that violation. He also wouldn't shut about not having literature (clearly false, and I could have proven it, they even had their speech docs in PDFs so I couldn't have edited them) 

 

The judge either didn't know or didn't care that I had answered T-USFG (specifically called me out on it when my partner had it flowed and remembered that I did), and also didn't know or care that the 2N completely changed his brightline on T-Increase (and we tried to call them out on this, too, but failed).

 

We don't have a K aff or some fucking performance 1AC. We were topical, and we did answer their T arguments. I'm still confused on how we lost that round, I guess they articulated their claims of abuse so well they just had to be true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We had a pretty common plan text about incentivizing private companies to build high-speed rail. They had specific links for their disads. They also had specific case answers and some pretty killer solvency deficit cards, but their 1N was too slow to get to most of them. They tried to say that we were abusive and there was no literature and other such bullshit, but I even offered to show the judge the speech doc that had all of this stuff they were claiming to not have.

 

Their violations were USFG (pretty easy to answer by defining the word investment), and Increase (something about increase having to be gradual and not all at once? I don't even know.) I forgot to put in the blocks for T-USFG but bullshitted pretty much exactly what they said. The 2N either wasn't paying attention or (more likely) decided to be a complete asshole and act like I hadn't answered that violation. He also wouldn't shut about not having literature (clearly false, and I could have proven it, they even had their speech docs in PDFs so I couldn't have edited them) 

 

The judge either didn't know or didn't care that I had answered T-USFG (specifically called me out on it when my partner had it flowed and remembered that I did), and also didn't know or care that the 2N completely changed his brightline on T-Increase (and we tried to call them out on this, too, but failed).

 

We don't have a K aff or some fucking performance 1AC. We were topical, and we did answer their T arguments. I'm still confused on how we lost that round, I guess they articulated their claims of abuse so well they just had to be true. 

I assume you ran tax credit=investment?

Any judge who votes neg on T on HSR should die.  Even if they didn't have lit on private sectors sucking(which they could have from any aff section of a private cp file), they still have lit on no ridership, can't solve warming, etc...

Sounds like a round my friend lost because "he made a major mistake by perming the cp, it really hurt your case"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My sophomore year (on the military topic), I ran a PMC aff. This PMC aff had a human rights advantage, the thesis of which was something along the lines of "Private military contractors are not subjected to the same laws/regulations that the average soldier is, which empirically results in human rights abuses."

 

My partner and I traveled to a local tournament one weekend. Second round, we were slated to be affirmative with an inexperienced judge. I was the 2A, so I was able to observe the judge's reaction to the 1AC very closely. From the start, I knew something was up with this guy -- he was making exaggerated facial gestures and scribbling furiously on his notepad. His strange behavior only worsened as the round wore on; he began interrupting [both teams'] cross-examinations and speeches with loud, forced chuckles and exclamations such as "That's not true!"

 

Despite the judge's bizarre actions, I was pretty confident upon the conclusion the round that my partner and I had secured a victory. That confidence was short-lived. After writing a few final comments on the ballot, the judge stood up and strutted to the front of the room. Still picking up our files (we debated using paper back in those days), all four debaters stopped what they were doing and looked up, slightly confused.

 

"Lemme tell ya, this round really pissed me off."

 

The color began draining from our respective faces. For the next minute or so, he berated both teams, growing more and more furious and animated as he continued his tirade.

 

"And YOU--"

 

(he pointed at me)

 

"YOU said all PMCs are terrible people and are human rights abusers! Lemme tell ya, I was a PMC for TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, and I never committed any human rights abuses!!"

 

Oh God.

 

"I'm really sorry sir, but that's not quite what I--"

 

"NO. I wrote it here...right here! YOU said ALL PMCs abuse people!"

 

"Sir, I don't believe I said that, and I certainly don't believe that all PMCs commit human rights abuses. I'm sorry it came across that way. My point was merely that there are fewer laws governing the behavior of PMCs."

 

"Well, that's what you f**kin' said, so I don't want to hear excuses..."

 

He continued on for another ten minutes, ripping apart seemingly every word uttered during the round by any of the four of us. This included a segment where he stated that the hunting jacket hanging from the back of his chair should have clued us into the fact that he was a military man. ("You gotta use stuff like that to figure out stuff about your judge!") I felt bad for giving him the impression that I thought he was a war criminal, but my attempts to apologize were swiftly slapped down by a barrage of expletives.

 

We lost.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My sophomore year (on the military topic), I ran a PMC aff. This PMC aff had a human rights advantage, the thesis of which was something along the lines of "Private military contractors are not subjected to the same laws/regulations that the average soldier is, which empirically results in human rights abuses."

 

My partner and I traveled to a local tournament one weekend. Second round, we were slated to be affirmative with an inexperienced judge. I was the 2A, so I was able to observe the judge's reaction to the 1AC very closely. From the start, I knew something was up with this guy -- he was making exaggerated facial gestures and scribbling furiously on his notepad. His strange behavior only worsened as the round wore on; he began interrupting [both teams'] cross-examinations and speeches with loud, forced chuckles and exclamations such as "That's not true!"

 

Despite the judge's bizarre actions, I was pretty confident upon the conclusion the round that my partner and I had secured a victory. That confidence was short-lived. After writing a few final comments on the ballot, the judge stood up and strutted to the front of the room. Still picking up our files (we debated using paper back in those days), all four debaters stopped what they were doing and looked up, slightly confused.

 

"Lemme tell ya, this round really pissed me off."

 

The color began draining from our respective faces. For the next minute or so, he berated both teams, growing more and more furious and animated as he continued his tirade.

 

"And YOU--"

 

(he pointed at me)

 

"YOU said all PMCs are terrible people and are human rights abusers! Lemme tell ya, I was a PMC for TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, and I never committed any human rights abuses!!"

 

Oh God.

 

"I'm really sorry sir, but that's not quite what I--"

 

"NO. I wrote it here...right here! YOU said ALL PMCs abuse people!"

 

"Sir, I don't believe I said that, and I certainly don't believe that all PMCs commit human rights abuses. I'm sorry it came across that way. My point was merely that there are fewer laws governing the behavior of PMCs."

 

"Well, that's what you f**kin' said, so I don't want to hear excuses..."

 

He continued on for another ten minutes, ripping apart seemingly every word uttered during the round by any of the four of us. This included a segment where he stated that the hunting jacket hanging from the back of his chair should have clued us into the fact that he was a military man. ("You gotta use stuff like that to figure out stuff about your judge!") I felt bad for giving him the impression that I thought he was a war criminal, but my attempts to apologize were swiftly slapped down by a barrage of expletives.

 

We lost.

 

maybe you should have learned to adapt

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe you should have learned to adapt

Adapt to what?  How should he have known the exact nature of the judge's military involvement? Even if the jacket had clued him in, he couldn't have known what part of the military he was in or that his experience would cause him to be so biased and defensive.  

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adapt to what?  How should he have known the exact nature of the judge's military involvement? Even if the jacket had clued him in, he couldn't have known what part of the military he was in or that his experience would cause him to be so biased and defensive.  

 

I could be mistaken, but I think that was Mason's point. When a debater frustrated with the inconsistency and subjectiveness of lay judges' decisions whines about these things, those who advocate lay judge participation often blame the debater's dissatisfaction on their inability to "adapt". While that notion is true to an extent, Mason seemed to be pointing out that there are some situations (such as my unfortunate run-in with my PMC pal) where the judge's bias has determined the outcome of the round before it has even started.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He had a hunting jacket. Therefore, he was a PMC.  Missing an internal linke.....

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could be mistaken, but I think that was Mason's point. When a debater frustrated with the inconsistency and subjectiveness of lay judges' decisions whines about these things, those who advocate lay judge participation often blame the debater's dissatisfaction on their inability to "adapt". While that notion is true to an extent, Mason seemed to be pointing out that there are some situations (such as my unfortunate run-in with my PMC pal) where the judge's bias has determined the outcome of the round before it has even started.

 

 

I don't think that's what he was saying at all. He was blaming the loss on the inability of the debater to adapt, which is why he suggested learning to adapt. I do agree that the debater could have never guessed that the judge was a former PMC, but he still could have adapted. Normally when you are faced with debating in front of a lay judge, accusing the private sector or the military of human rights violations isn't the best route, at least in my experience as a Louisiana debater. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...