Jump to content
Mr.Military

Funniest Judge Comments

Recommended Posts

I ran Radical Orthodoxy and he was Christian.

"Wow, by the end of the round I was wanting to become atheist and was praying that the other judges would vote you two down."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i find these pretty funny:

 

1) you beat theory like a dead horse

2) when i think of coast guard i think of pamela anderson(lifeguard)

3) thier impact was colonizing space, thats really stupid, you should ask in CX "where will we go when we go to space?"

4) wait until i, the judge, leave the room until you start talking bad about me

 

note: only the first one was directed at me...the rest were from other people's ballots.

 

Where and when was the space thing? I know someone who ran Space Force as an Aff last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

k, so this was an aff round at a national circuit tourney.

2NC was 8 minutes of fem.

so i was like, "i ain't gonna do no woman debate."

so my 1AR is all condo bad.

2NR totally undercovers. (as in spends 1.5 minutes on condo, then for some reason spends 3.5 on a DA???)

so i write out an o/v for my partner and i'm like, "don't fuck up"

well we drop.

 

judge is like "yeah, going into the 2AR, i was 90% sure that the aff was going to win. well, i was wrong."

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in one of my rounds i went up against a team that didnt know what they were doing

 

and fro some reason they started talk about jesus!!

 

and were like jesus was black so sub sahren africa should be hepled

 

and i was like we will leave the burden of proveing that jesus was black to the to the other team

 

we got our ballots back and i won and all it said was the neg team loses because they couldent prove that jesus was actully black!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fizelly27

round 4 at gbrooks went for nietszche in the 2nr

Judge: I think u guys won this round. But, if i vote for u, i set a precedent that i can never vote affirmative so i affirm.

My Coach: How did u evaluate the argument that the K turns the case?

Judge: I didnt

 

round 6 at gbrooks Ran my edelman queer theory aff

The judge said and i literally quote, "For all i care the queers can burn in hell."

Easy to say that he negated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a good one last year im hitting dadt and i go 4 boyscouts/deference cp solves heterosexuality and there deference adv...and i impact turned hege judge votes neg but still i will always remember hill billy judge goes

why would u wanna give them gays rights...its just wrong...u should of gotten out of the hege and impact turned that...

sad hting was i dont think he was joking or sarcastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm the 1AC and this is what the judge said about my speech, something along the lines of, you should have the SOI and HOI kids help you with your speech.

he gave me 3 speaker points, gave my partner 30 pooints and gave us the win. It wasn't really funny, but it was insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, In my 2NR I go for a Brain Drain Da, solvency and turns against a peace corp aff that sent volunteers to train local doctors in Africa. Afterwards...

 

Judge: Okay, on your overview I have flowed that the PC volunteers and villagers will be greedy bastards in it for the benjamins and will leave for the $$$ to fuck Africa over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My team runs an Edelman Aff and in his decision the judge (who I believe is the coach from Bellaire) said "I voted negative- I dont care about the queers they can all burn in hell."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
round 6 at gbrooks Ran my edelman queer theory aff

The judge said and i literally quote, "For all i care the queers can burn in hell."

Easy to say that he negated

hmmmmm

 

My team runs an Edelman Aff and in his decision the judge (who I believe is the coach from Bellaire) said "I voted negative- I dont care about the queers they can all burn in hell."

 

i dont know why this looks familiar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmmmmm

 

 

 

i dont know why this looks familiar

 

its amazing scott, right now you are able to identify similar statements- soon you'll be able to color in the lines.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Well...This Disad's impact is people dying from terrorism in Kashmir....WHO THE FUCK CARES!?" (India-Saudi relations DA on the college topic)

 

"Never put topicality on the bottom of the 2AC. If you do that you are fucked... YOU ARE FUCKED!!!!" (I did that yet somehow won the round)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we were aff against one of those annoying teams that to 4 off with 3 Ts and a K. they didn’t know much about the substance of the K, but had blocks to literally everything. So the 2nc goes up and reads a shitton of theory like intrinicness and severance bad, even like perms in general are bad. My cross-x of the 2nc literally consisted of me asking what each piece of theory meant. He couldn’t answer any of it.

In the 1ar, I started off by putting and independent voter on the theory cuz of the edu lost when the other team ran it. Like understanding is key to education or some bullshit like that.

judge's first comment was that my partner and i were "a collective dick" and that if there were negative speaker points he would give them to us. Basically ripped on how mean we were for the entirety of his critique.

We didn’t break cuz of speaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its amazing scott, right now you are able to identify similar statements- soon you'll be able to color in the lines.

u may hve 2 wait a couple months 2 c that...im a little slow u know...but hey im only 15 i have the rest of my life 2 learn that...and even if i dont...i can still end up just as kewl as u...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, after our very first debate meet, my partner and i started to read our ballots. we get to the third one from when we were aff and the last thing the judge wrote was "the neg has utterly crushed the aff". we thought it was pretty hilarious and went around saying that we had been "utterly crushed" for a week.

*~*

then, at another meet we get into the room and the judge goes, "ok, so i do LD. i hate policy and really don't want to be here right now. i'm a pretty chill judge, but don't talk fast and try not to bore me." then, between speeches she wrote on the chalkboard "(blank) minutes until freedom". and we won. : )

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so, after our very first debate meet, my partner and i started to read our ballots. we get to the third one from when we were aff and the last thing the judge wrote was "the neg has utterly crushed the aff". we thought it was pretty hilarious and went around saying that we had been "utterly crushed" for a week.

*~*

then, at another meet we get into the room and the judge goes, "ok, so i do LD. i hate policy and really don't want to be here right now. i'm a pretty chill judge, but don't talk fast and try not to bore me." then, between speeches she wrote on the chalkboard "(blank) minutes until freedom". and we won. : )

 

Wow... that sux,but I've gotta admit it sounds pretty interesting.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although may have happened in PF, its still one of the most ridiculous ballots I've ever received. First some insight on the round. It was the final round at the LHS inv. FHS vs BHS, FHS is negative. The judges consisting of one 75 year old woman (no exaggeration, we asked her daughter), a first time judge (who we had just had the round before... same team...., a parent of the opposing school), and a 4 year policy debater. The end result was a 2-1 decision in the aff's favor. Us getting the win from the policy debater, and BHS getting the other 2. But when we look to see why we had lost, this is what the 75 year old had to say...

"Reason for your decision: Organization"

 

we were pissed.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although may have happened in PF, its still one of the most ridiculous ballots I've ever received. First some insight on the round. It was the final round at the LHS inv. FHS vs BHS, FHS is negative. The judges consisting of one 75 year old woman (no exaggeration, we asked her daughter), a first time judge (who we had just had the round before... same team...., a parent of the opposing school), and a 4 year policy debater. The end result was a 2-1 decision in the aff's favor. Us getting the win from the policy debater, and BHS getting the other 2. But when we look to see why we had lost, this is what the 75 year old had to say...

"Reason for your decision: Organization"

 

Needless to say.... we were pissed.

 

Was this round in Nebraska? ... if so I think I actually watched this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevr4you4getit: No, it was in central California. Where the judging standards are very... very low.

 

And movingonup: You know it =] I've gotten more organized with my flows since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i need somewhere to put this so i figured this is the most appropriate place

 

should be noted we had a very very UIL style judge that did not like anything faster than conversation speed, as well as other odd paradigms ill explain

 

we were aff and the neg's arguments were:

 

T= SSA

T= "resolved" / xtra-t

Fiscal Discipline

Corruption da

Case (inherency, advantages and solvency)

 

in the 2ac i cover it all

 

in the block they kick resolved t and go for ssa, fd and extend uniqueness only on the corruption da, thats all

 

my partners 1ar was fine

 

in the 2nr he goes for t=ssa and fd? yeah

 

2ar i cover everything

 

judges rfd:

 

J: "well...i voted negatve"

ME: "oh, on what argument"

J: "well i dont think you increase PHA, your a little bit vauge

ME: "o, alright. i mustve missed that, which flow was that made on?

J: "flow?...no i just dont think your topical"

ME: "oh...well what about the arguments they DID make?

J: "well i don't think you address corruption...i mean...its AFRICA!"

ME: "but they didn't go for that argument unless im mistaken."

J: "oh well, once its said it is done and established. where i come from we start signing the ballot after the second rebuttal or the uhhh...1ar i guess.

ME: "oh...alright...so were too vague? how can we better write our plan incase we get another judge from your area specifically?"

J: "oh don't bother. you'll never get a judge like ME again, you just got really really unlucky!"

ME: "oh alright...thanks for judging........"

 

guess what else? this was round 2 of TFA state this weekend...yeah...

 

we got DQed round one becuz we were late becuz of weather and our principal being too stubborn so after we got jipped that round we were prevented from breaking becuz the weather resulted in it being a 4 round tournament, and we won the next 2 legit to only rub it in even more

 

great judging pool huh?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great judging pool huh?

 

Strange, my stories come from the exact same tournament. first round-The judge refused to answer our questions about arguments before the round, his ballot read- I voted neg after the 1AC, it's impossible to solve for critical adv. you guys should have known I was a stock issues judge. Also in the same round the other team read evidence from authors who were working for pharmaceutical companies saying that stealing African medicine was okay and we argued they were biased and simply wanted to legitimize their colonialism then the ballot said "critical authors are biased- not theirs".

 

fourth round we had something similar happen to us. The judge voted on "workability" even though it wasnt even brought up in the 2NR (not to mention the worst argument- you dont specify your funding or enforcement even though we don't spend money and we clarified in cross-x)

 

Oh well, It happens. I dont want to blame it on judges, these rounds made me exceptionally frustrated though because it was at state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i need somewhere to put this so i figured this is the most appropriate place

 

should be noted we had a very very UIL style judge that did not like anything faster than conversation speed, as well as other odd paradigms ill explain

 

we were aff and the neg's arguments were:

 

T= SSA

T= "resolved" / xtra-t

Fiscal Discipline

Corruption da

Case (inherency, advantages and solvency)

 

in the 2ac i cover it all

 

in the block they kick resolved t and go for ssa, fd and extend uniqueness only on the corruption da, thats all

 

my partners 1ar was fine

 

in the 2nr he goes for t=ssa and fd? yeah

 

2ar i cover everything

 

judges rfd:

 

J: "well...i voted negatve"

ME: "oh, on what argument"

J: "well i dont think you increase PHA, your a little bit vauge

ME: "o, alright. i mustve missed that, which flow was that made on?

J: "flow?...no i just dont think your topical"

ME: "oh...well what about the arguments they DID make?

J: "well i don't think you address corruption...i mean...its AFRICA!"

ME: "but they didn't go for that argument unless im mistaken."

J: "oh well, once its said it is done and established. where i come from we start signing the ballot after the second rebuttal or the uhhh...1ar i guess.

ME: "oh...alright...so were too vague? how can we better write our plan incase we get another judge from your area specifically?"

J: "oh don't bother. you'll never get a judge like ME again, you just got really really unlucky!"

ME: "oh alright...thanks for judging........"

 

guess what else? this was round 2 of TFA state this weekend...yeah...

 

we got DQed round one becuz we were late becuz of weather and our principal being too stubborn so after we got jipped that round we were prevented from breaking becuz the weather resulted in it being a 4 round tournament, and we won the next 2 legit to only rub it in even more

 

great judging pool huh?

I have had a judge like that, and he signed his ballot after the neg block. That made me upset, he also gave us the loss for some args that we either fully covered or the neg did not even bring up.

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...