Jump to content
Mr.Military

Funniest Judge Comments

Recommended Posts

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.

 

yeah see its just frustrating to kno that becuz of our principal prolonging our arrival and a crazy judge that admitted they did not belong there we were automatically not going to break...

 

not only do i know we are better than some teams that broke but we didnt even have the chance to show it

 

it just sucks when you work so hard for something like state expecting it to at least be worth the time and effort (getting 18 points) and getting stuck on the D team as a junior w/ a junior partner becuz of the amount of seniors we have is frustrating especially becuz we barely even had the chance to TRY and get bids...we attended like i think 3-4 bid tourneys, i know thats enough to qual but when the rest of your squad (seniors) get like 10...u cant help but be extremely irritated at the end of the year

 

sry for the rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

State for my partner and I wasn't great either. I know it's not good to blame the judges, but we had the worst judges we had ever had.

 

First round totally lay judge, we picked up the ballot but barely. We were aff and all the neg ran was generic aid bad. They tried to make a disad out of aid bad cards but it didn't work. The judge said she voted aff because we seemed to know what we were talking about.

 

Second round we were neg. We hit plumpy nut. It was a legit loss for us. *Best round and judge of the tournament*

 

Third round we were neg. We hit a very confusing brain drain case. Our judge said she loved T. We ran 3 T and some other stuff. We pulled all 3 T through to the end. The other team didn't really cover T much. We really should have won, but the judge didn't vote on the T. grrrr.

Also before the round the judge said "Debate is ballin'" Maybe that's when we should have worried?

 

Fourth round we were aff, we won, but the ballot was illegible.

 

Fifth round we hit pepfar. We ran 2 disads, some T, some Inh, and some turns. It was a pretty straight forward round. It could have gone either way. On the ballot it had no explanation for the decision except that neg should read less evidence and aff should have ONE fact sheet about their case. She also commented that My partner and I should wear dark colored non-cotton suits, closed toed shoes, light colored nail polish if any at all, and that we were late, even though i showed up on time, just my partner was giving one of our other teams a block we had.

 

This was the first tournament my partner and i hadn't broken and of course it had to be state. grrr

 

Okay, my rant is done.

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At Cal, one of our other teams (in JV, so I guess you might expect this) hit a judge who said he was a parent judge, but we're pretty sure he's not because of the way he talked and other things. Anyway, they were Aff, they run DDT, and the neg isn't that good and runs some basic disads and T. In the 2NR they go for a disad. It's important to note that Solvency was never brought up the entire round. The 2AR sits down, and the judge looks down at his ballot (no flow), looks up at the teams and puts his hands in the air, like he's weighing something. He goes "Eh...well...I just don't think the bug spray works I guess." (This judge is an interesting character who also judge this team and us at Head-Royce. Both times we were aff. Both times we switched out DDT for water. On our round, he almost voted on a T that was dropped in the 2NR that we needed a copy of the WFP act to debate).

 

They also hit this team that forfeited to us at Stanford (two frosh girls). LD judge. The other team had almost no evidence to back up what they were saying, and what they had was seriously powertagged. LD judge decides that doesn't matter in her RFD and votes neg (they were aff).

 

Yeah...they got one legit loss that tournament and it's worth noting that they went 5-3...either one of those rounds could have meant they'd clear.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is after the other team left the room and we were packing up

(note: 2NR makes a stupid high pitch mocking voice, but gets cut off by our judge)

"If I see that kid make that stupid F**kin noise again, I think im gonna stab him in the neck"

volient judges are funny

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst has to be NFL Quals for LD. I was sick that weekend with a really bad case of the flu (which later turned into pneumonia), but I was 1 round away from winning a spot so I was gonna give it my all. I had a judge who I knew was fairly competent as he was one of my friends' dads and I was debating someone I knew I could beat. For my condition, I went in there and destroyed him. I talk to him after the round and he says "you know, you won every single argument on the flow, but I had to drop you because you didn't persuade me." Now, I understand debate, LD especially is a persuasion game, but I damn near killed myself that round. Boy was I pissed...

 

Also, I once judged a round which went something like this:

 

The neg team gets up and reads a K about how existence is intrinsically bad and that the mere fact of something existing causes more strife than if it wouldn't. Sigh, I think. But then they go on case and link the other team to extinction. The aff asks 1 question in CX "is your K conditional or unconditional?" Neg responds "uncon." The aff uses no prep and gets up and grants everything, I thow my pen on the desk and say "good round!" The neg was so confused. They tried to get up to argue but I just said "you heard them, they concede all your points." They shrugged it off and left, I guess assuming they won. My ballot was something like:

 

If you're going to run a K saying life bad, then don't bitch when they destroy life, instead rejoice in the blood of the innocent, for they are truly the lucky ones.... Aff wins because the neg was stupid.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far here are a couple:

 

"Who cares about Africans? Aren't we like 400 trillion dollars in debt? Why waste our money on them?"

(the judge was wearing a NASCAR hat... go figure)

 

"Debate the facts not the evidence"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Debate the facts not the evidence"

 

I imagine what he/she meant was "debate the facts, not the cards." I've written that on ballots. A card is not an argument - a card is evidence for an argument, and it isn't always good evidence. Lots of debaters are good at re-interpreting cards in their favor, but nobody seems to want to debate the merits of the claim itself.

 

Take this round for example. Read the case debate and the K debate. The neg argued on-case all over the place and dove right into the content of the cards, but never went straight-up against the arguments. The same was true of the K debate. Nobody seemed to contest that the cards were the word of God. The entire case/K debate was over what the cards say and who they help. As I said in my RFD: The 2AC ought to have pressed hard for warrants. Seriously, an English professor in Morocco asserting that "focusing on the stage where the major dramas of power take place tends to obscure our sight" without a shred of proof is monumentally bad evidence. The Kappeler card lacked warrants, and the Nayar cards lacked meaningful content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I imagine what he/she meant was "debate the facts, not the cards." I've written that on ballots. A card is not an argument - a card is evidence for an argument, and it isn't always good evidence. Lots of debaters are good at re-interpreting cards in their favor, but nobody seems to want to debate the merits of the claim itself.

 

Take this round for example. Read the case debate and the K debate. The neg argued on-case all over the place and dove right into the content of the cards, but never went straight-up against the arguments. The same was true of the K debate. Nobody seemed to contest that the cards were the word of God. The entire case/K debate was over what the cards say and who they help. As I said in my RFD: The 2AC ought to have pressed hard for warrants. Seriously, an English professor in Morocco asserting that "focusing on the stage where the major dramas of power take place tends to obscure our sight" without a shred of proof is monumentally bad evidence. The Kappeler card lacked warrants, and the Nayar cards lacked meaningful content.

 

Normally you'd be right, but I'd like to shed insight on the situation, as that was written on my ballot.

 

In the round we hit a mediocre speaker small town team, and they neglected to read citations or tags the entire round. We stressed how it was illegitimate, and responded to (what we thought) were the arguments. As per usual Missouri judging, it was a lay. Even then, we lost. I'm still not sure what was going through his head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah see its just frustrating to kno that becuz of our principal prolonging our arrival and a crazy judge that admitted they did not belong there we were automatically not going to break...

 

not only do i know we are better than some teams that broke but we didnt even have the chance to show it

 

it just sucks when you work so hard for something like state expecting it to at least be worth the time and effort (getting 18 points) and getting stuck on the D team as a junior w/ a junior partner becuz of the amount of seniors we have is frustrating especially becuz we barely even had the chance to TRY and get bids...we attended like i think 3-4 bid tourneys, i know thats enough to qual but when the rest of your squad (seniors) get like 10...u cant help but be extremely irritated at the end of the year

 

sry for the rant

 

No, whats worse is when you are a fairly decent debate team (only losing 10 rounds the whole year), both as seniors. The state debate tournament is 900 miles away (East Houston to El Paso), and our coach decided not to take a plane so we threw 10 bodies (3 teams, 3 observers and a coach) in a suburban for 15+ hours. Needless to say, me and my partner backpacked the tourny instead of 5 tubs we usually carried. We destroy the team in round one, lose to Greenhill B in a great heg debate in round 2, pick up rd 3, lose rd 4 in an awful decision by some West Texas judge because he believed that space weapons were too sci fi, and then get a badass judge in round 5...

 

Rd 5 against a good but beatable school, we flipped aff and ran space weapons. They did case, consult NATO, T, and a few other NBs. We proved without a doubt the CP did not solve the case, and ran did a perm just to test the competitiveness, then turned the NB's kritikally so our case solved, CP linked to K impacts on NB. Their case debate was mitigators at best, and we Kritiked the T. Our framework on the K of T said it comes before everything, it was dropped by neg block. My 1AR was 4 minutes of K of T impacts and framework then, case, then CP. At the end I made the arg on theory dispo/perm that just reject arg not team. Ya know...the usual. 2NR kicks CP and tries to salvage T, but shadow extends dispo good and claim one of the args as having pre fiat implications. My partners 2AR starts off with an overview with extending reject arg, not the team on dispo debate and then spent 15 seconds on the neg answering the K of T in the 2NR after conceded in the neg block. Then he goes to the T flow proper and wipes the floor on the Impact of the K of T.

 

Judge voted neg on the dispo theory arg that had pre-fiat implications. I asked him why and he said my 1AR didnt have the reject the arguement, not the team on his flow. Im like ok...no big deal. Who cares about the K of T that was conceded. Maybe he just didnt hear it. After he turned in the ballot he came up to me and apologized about his mistake. He said he looked at his flows afterwards and realized he did have the arg on the flow so it would have been rejected and our K of T would've easily won that round.

 

The judge is known for being one of the very best in the state, but it goes to show you that even the best fuck up sometimes. Needless to say that was our break round and we had great speaks so we wouldve broke. But in your case, you may have gotten screwed by the system, but you get to debate againm next year. Just hope state isnt in Dallas or El Paso.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dispositionality being good is not an offensive reason to vote negative?

 

it doesnt seem like you even need reject the argument not the team in the 1ar? that's a neg arg (on the dispo debate).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Round 6 at prequals. Hit a freshman team, we were aff. They preceded to (on the neg) read 14 off, which is fine, but all they read was tag lines. In cross-x they insisted that the "authors" themselves had written the taglines for the evidence so it was legit. So we grill them for a minute in the 2ac that its abusive for the neg to read just taglines where as the aff has been legitamite in reading both the taglines, cites, and evidence itself. Plus we had case turns, etc. RFD; Found no abuse, and they had more arguments then you coming out of the first speech.... (WTF)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Round 6 at prequals. Hit a freshman team, we were aff. They preceded to (on the neg) read 14 off, which is fine, but all they read was tag lines. In cross-x they insisted that the "authors" themselves had written the taglines for the evidence so it was legit. So we grill them for a minute in the 2ac that its abusive for the neg to read just taglines where as the aff has been legitamite in reading both the taglines, cites, and evidence itself. Plus we had case turns, etc. RFD; Found no abuse, and they had more arguments then you coming out of the first speech.... (WTF)

You should have read just taglines in the 2AC as well. Or just argue that there were no warrants to anything they said.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we thought of doing that after round, but sadly we didnt think of it in round. we were being smashed with 40 pieces of paper and had other things on our minds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dispositionality being good is not an offensive reason to vote negative?

 

it doesnt seem like you even need reject the argument not the team in the 1ar? that's a neg arg (on the dispo debate).

 

 

No we said to reject the whole dispo bad args because it wasnt worth going for. There was offense on the dispo flow unknown to me at the time. We didnt care if there was, we just wanted out of the CP theory debate bc it was getting muddled and redundant. (i.e.."We say Dispo Bad, they say Dispo Good") We wanted to shift focus to the K of T and we made distinctions about how the Techno-Strategic Discourse of the 1AC came first before any possible offense on the Cp flow. And thats how the judge viewed it as well...but after the ballot was signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No we said to reject the whole dispo bad args because it wasnt worth going for. There was offense on the dispo flow unknown to me at the time. We didnt care if there was, we just wanted out of the CP theory debate bc it was getting muddled and redundant. (i.e.."We say Dispo Bad, they say Dispo Good") We wanted to shift focus to the K of T and we made distinctions about how the Techno-Strategic Discourse of the 1AC came first before any possible offense on the Cp flow. And thats how the judge viewed it as well...but after the ballot was signed.

 

What? How does this work? Normally if the aff runs dispo bad, the neg responds, and if the 1ar doesn't want to go for it, they don't even have to mention it...I am confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What? How does this work? Normally if the aff runs dispo bad, the neg responds, and if the 1ar doesn't want to go for it, they don't even have to mention it...I am confused.

 

Very true. But if offense is on a theory flow it is generally not a good idea to drop it. Its the same with any other flow except some of the arguements on theory can come before much of the policy impacts.

Also keep in mind that the arguements may be different than what Im saying. Not different by the way it happened but different by name. I honestly do not remember whether it was dispo/conditional or a perm or what on the CP flow. All I can remember is that it was theory we didnt go for and they shadow extended their offense on it.

 

And its supposed to be confusing. Thats how I felt after the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in a puff round on my friends ballot:

 

" who care you cant even read my handwritting."

 

and we could not read it, it look like a chicken signed the ballot, might as well have been a chicken. i like chickens a lot. or mabe its just the word.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Novice year my partner and I were debating aff in this one round and the neg team ran a disad to a completely different case. We pointed this out in every speech but that was the only thing they concentrated on. We won (Obviously).

 

The judge had no paper and flowed on the back of the ballet, and next to the other team's arguments he drew a self portiant of himself lying on the ground dead.

 

Durring the other team's speaches he also repeatedly hit his head on the table in front of him.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Third round we were neg. We hit a very confusing brain drain case. Our judge said she loved T. We ran 3 T and some other stuff. We pulled all 3 T through to the end. The other team didn't really cover T much. We really should have won, but the judge didn't vote on the T. grrrr.

Also before the round the judge said "Debate is ballin'" Maybe that's when we should have worried?

 

So you went for 3 separate Ts in the 2NR and can't figure out why you didn't win? Like, for real?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One time a judge just drew a huge portrait of my face over the whole ballot, and didn't write anything else. It was a good drawing though.... We won.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A judge accepting completely new arguments on a counterplan that was dropped throughout the round in the 2AR, extending the entire of case for the AFF by them saying "extend case", but not specific links in the 2NC, and giving my partner 20 speaker points for his attitude after the round, even though the other team admitted that he wasn't rude at all (there was no disclosure, so we didn't know who won.. he wasn't arguing with her or anything). Kinda funny, seeing as she wrote that he had the best constructive and a great rebuttal. And if he got a 27 or higher, we would have broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not really that funny but on my friend's LD ballot~~

 

Aff-- don't shout in CX

Neg-- don't shout in CX

 

 

 

I still dont really know what happened in that round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RFD:

"Neg wins T. The aff has to use the USFG, not NGO's like the Peace Corps."

No standards, no voter.

Just a 1NC shell.

To means direct, you send to an NGO. You lose.

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...