Jump to content
Tomak

Judge Paradigms

Recommended Posts

Guest fizelly27

im willing to judge

i vote on anything and you can do whatever you want however you should have justifications for the theoretical legitimacy of your argumennt

 

also dont do somethting silly like aspec and ospec, i will probably laugh at you

 

im a 2a and have run both kritikal (edelman) and policy affirmatives on this topic and in the negative block i have either taken a kritikal argument, case, or a really cheap process cp that has been called "shady" by a number of judges in most negative rounds. Ive read some foucault, zizek, nietzche, etc. but dont assume because I know some k stuff that means you can just say "the aff fails to encircle the Real they lose". Ks need explanations more than most other arguments.

Also dont assume because i like kritikal arguments that i dislike policy type arguments. I am a big fan of watching T debates and think when executed properly are a thing of beauty to watch. Also, i love in-depth case debates and think the negative gives way too much leeway by not htting on the affirmative case. I think case specific cps are probably alot more fun to watch than seeing someone run Consult Nato or XO and case specific pics are probably even cooler. Disads are always cool but i tend to think ptix scenarios are garbage so if you want to go to ptix you are going to have to do a good job on the link debate explaing why plan increase poli cap enough to get Bush to pass a bill. that being said i tend to agree that alot of times the uniquness will overwhelm the link and i think that argument should be fleshed out more. Case specific disads are pretty fun to watch too.

Even if you run some generic nonsense i will still do my best to ajudicate the round in an objective manner (although i might cry a little bit on the inside).

*rant done*

PM me or hit me up on Aim: baseballpunker27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge I vote on any thing but take me where you want to go I will follow any where T to K. Really um I won't drop anything till you do... lol

 

P.S. love tricky stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason Wright

Lakeland HS

 

I am a 4th year policy debater.

 

I am a primarily policy-oriented person, though I believe I am a fair judge of kritiks even if I am not as well-versed.

 

T - I think that it is easier to tell whether or not an aff is topical than most T debates make it seem like. If you are on the right side of the debate, regardless of which side this is, don't get bogged down in trying to win meaningless smaller theory debates while ignoring the big picture. You must make an attempt to compare different standards and win a framework for evaluating the debate for me to provide a decent decision.

 

Ks - I am very flow-oriented. I will be more likely to give your argument substantive weight if it has structure and you can isolate specific parts of your argument that the aff has not responded to rather than mashing it all into one discombobulated thesis. I think the aff's strongest weapons against the K are specific framework arguments (means you must go beyond fiat good, etc) and impact turns/disads to the alt. Unique permutations are often a winner because I think a lot of teams are woefully inept at answering well-thought out permutations beyond theory. You MUST stay on top of the line-by-line, especially regarding new impact scenarios and stupid "turns case"/"fiat is illusory so your plan doesn't happen" arguments

 

Case - Although I'm sure many of you are beyond this - in novice/JV debates I've judged the most frustrating thing is when people don't realize that an advantage should normally carry the same weight as a DA. Are two crappy analytics sufficient to answer an DA? No. Then why do you insist on assuming this is all you need on case and waste your time reading shitty DAs you don't need?

 

Everything else - Please read good arguments. I will probably read a lot of your evidence because these debates are online, and if your argument sucks I will give it less credence.

 

I think it's sweet when people read CPs that do what aff authors actually advocate, and I think there is a huge opportunity to do this online.

 

I err neg on some of the more basic theoretical issues, but I think that in a lot of cases, if all the best arguments are lined up the aff will win most of the time - this includes consult/condition/any other type of CP that competes based on fiat.

 

General - You have so much prep time. Don't read a politics DA from camp. Why not try something different since these debates don't actually matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This actually gets me pretty excited -- feel free to sub me in as needed - just PM to let me know I'm in. Posted below is my judging philosophy

 

Judging Philosophy

Matt Gayetsky

Miami University

 

I get one of two responses from people when they hear that I am judging, either "I was concerned about our team running kritiks with you in the back of the room", or, "If we have you again, our strategy should be much more critical, right?" Neither of these assumptions are correct, and they reflect the balance that I enjoyed when I was debating. That being the case, it's likely in your best interest to run a position that you enjoy debating and give me a compelling reason why this means that you win. Unless your argument is that persuasion is bad, in which case, I will try not to be persuaded. I think. Anyways -- here are a couple of things that I normally do when evaluating a round. Note that this is a "normally" and is by no means binding. If you tell me to do something else, I'll do it -- but if you don't, then this is what you get.

 

Theory/Topicality: On any theory argument, I think that it is the burden of the team who initiated the debate to decisively win the debate. What that means for you is I'm more likely to err aff on topicality and perms good, and more likely to err neg on conditionality good. This doesn't mean I won't vote the other way. As I've been judging, I have become more persuaded that conditionality is probably good for debate, and to win that conditionality is bad, you should probably couch your objections in specific scenarios of what the negative could have done to skew your strategy. I vote on topicality a lot, especially on the Middle East topic, but that is more because of the nature of the debate and less because I'm a T-hack.

 

Disad's/CP's/Case: I think that they are valuable negative tools. I think that arguments like "There is no reason why the neg should get disad ground" is a bad argument. Give me reasons how and why they interact with the case; impact work is a necessity and I don't just assume that nuclear war will somehow turn the case. Tell me what your counterplan does and why it solves even if you think that it seems obvious. Answer the case - it's a good idea.

 

Kritiks: People who debated me my senior year assume that I am in love with the K. This is only partially true; I think that it adds another strategic dimension to the debate that ought to be exploited. However I think that this often makes it more difficult for the Neg, because I expect a framework to be clearly set up about how I am supposed to evaluate the kritik. And the words, "this is a kritik of their method" isn't good enough. What in the aff am I rejecting? All or part of it? Can they leverage the case against the impacts of the K? What does the ballot do? Who am I and what agency do I have as a policymaker, activist, person with illusory power in the back of the room? These questions are gateway questions, because without answers to these questions I can't evaluate the substance. But by all means run them, I'm likely at least somewhat familiar with the substance of the argument so long drawn out explanations aren't always necessary. But if you are running something a bit newer or not as common, don't assume that I know what you mean. Conversely, I'm okay being that gatekeeper that Kafka was talking about, but I need a warrant why to exclude their positions in favor of something else.

 

My view on performance is akin to my view on kritiks. I always enjoyed the rounds where I debated against performance teams, and our strategy was normally to try to out-left the performing team. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. Because of the nature of these rounds, the framework questions I outlined above are even more important because of the discursive theories surrounding performative acts. I will be more than happy to vote for a team that performs, assuming that these questions have answers. I will also be more than happy to drop a team that performs if these questions are not answered and it's unclear what I would be voting in favor of.

 

Debate is all about story telling. Whether it's how the disad turns the case and the EU CP avoids the link, or why your experiences with prejudice impacts your understanding of policymaking, the story is what is important. All knowledges have implications and could justify rejection of your opponent. But you need to give me a reason why this is the case. Why does your story justify rejection of the other team? Answer that question, and you'll win the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATED

 

We are now up to 43 judges. Nice to have some long-time Cross-X.com members like Tarrkin, Ankur, and Scu jumping into the mix too. :)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will judge as well to make it an even fourty four...

I will vote on anything... I flow well and i like when there is lots of clash... I want to be told where to vote and i also will drop arguements if you do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to judge as well, preferably an Africa debate.

I've debated for four years.

I would like to consider myself as having a tab paradigm.

I enjoy hearing K debates that include sufficient, organized argumentation. I've read some of the major literature (Foucault, Nietzsche, Heidegger) and am familiar with much of the Africa literature.

That being said, I love a CP-DA debate as much as the next person, especially econ debates (please no generic spending DAs tho). A really specific case debate would be awesome since there's so much time. Actually talking about Africa would be ideal. Politics is always fun.

T debates probably wouldn't be the best use of this new debating opportunity but I don't mind (and even at times enjoy) good T debates - but be sure to make it organized and very clear.

I would like to note that I am more likely to give weight to defense than most - I think great explanations of defensive arguments beat out warrantless "it might be nuclear war" impacts (unless this framework is debated in round).

Overviews are nice; long useless thoughts for 3 minutes (or 300 words in this case) aren't

Ultimately, debate is what the debaters make it. I'm just here to enjoy the ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge. I've debated about any style and will judge that way.

I'm more tab rosa but I default policy maker if not given a framework to be put into. I strictly vote on what's in the round, and view conceeded arguments as truth.

T: I think this traditionally comes down to competing interps and that's how most rounds are viewed. However, if you want to make the debate come down to voters or something else that's fine. I'm fine with K's of T.

DAs/CP: I'm fine with whatever. Process, consult, international actor, whatever you want is fine. I don't care if it's topical or not(unless you somehow lose topical CP's bad).

K's: Fine, explain your author well enough and you can win it. I don't have predispotions against generic links, and running critical case turns is also fine but articulate how rejecting team somehow is worthy absent an alt.

Theory: I'll vote on whatever is in the debate round. That said, it's generally hard to win dispo bad, and neg fiat bad but go for it. Again I strictly view it on what is present in the round. Also I default to reject the argument not the team on many positions unless given another reason.

 

Any questions just ask. And I'd like to judge soon so PM me or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more than willing to throw my hat into the ring.

 

I've debated for 3 years in highschool, but I've been at the top levels of debate throughout this last year.

 

I normally debate critical arguments everywhere, but I LOVE to hear a good PIC/CP/DA + case throwdown more than anything else.

 

Examples:

Nuke malthus? Please do

Wipeout? Do it.

Process CP? Sure, but you're on the wrong side of the theory for me unless you have some hoss blocks

PICs? Are good. Unless the aff has some very compelling reasons otherwise

Condo is good, dispo is perfect (As in, i won't evaluate dispo bad theory)

 

I am knowledgeable on most arguments on the Africa topic, but am most well versed on T and critiques.

 

PM or AIM me to judge.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to judge. I've done high school policy for 4 years. I'm pretty familiar with all the arguments on this years topic. I'm pretty tab.

 

I've read a fair amount of critical literature and I run the K a lot. That being said I'm totally open to a framework debate.

 

CPs/DAs are pretty bread and butter and I like hearing good debates on them.

 

Theory - totally cool. I've won a sickening number of rounds on the neg mishandling theory in the block despite winning the rest of the flow.

 

T - I think this is the one argument where i might have a slightly higher threshold for voting on but that being said I have voted on it before and if you think you're winning it, i would go for it. Just make sure you're explaining your arguments and clashing with theirs rather than restating your 1nc shell which is a problem I see with a lot of T debates.

 

I'm down with crazy args - spark, etc. Bonus points if you read lacan

 

PM me if you want me to judge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm a high school debater. Was my school's "A team" last year. Now, I'm the "B team" *cries* But its all good. Won a tournament this year. Got to semi's a few times last year.

 

Paradigm:

 

T- I'm a topicality enthusiast. I'm not a "prove potential abuse" hag. I'll vote wherever you tell me to vote. Whoever is winning the voting issue wins. Aff or Neg. Make sure to impact your standards. The Aff steals all neg ground...why is that bad? How does that effect the round? Why should the Aff lose because of that?

 

Disad- I'm definitely going to need some impact calc. Whether the Aff undercovers or not. 1 nuke war is the same as any other nuke war. I need to know why your nuke war is more important than theirs.

 

K- Critical args are fine with me. Just explain the link better than "foreign aid is biopolitical" or whatever your argument is. Tell me why this impact outweighs theirs. Explain why the Alternative solves (it better be something other the reject). Aff needs to explain why the alternative doesn't solve. And Always put offense on the flow.

 

CP- Counterplan theory is fine. I don't prefer dispo/condish/uncondish better than others. Just explain why the CP solves best, how it doesnt Link into the NB, why the perm (if they perm it) can't solve and still links to the NB and why its the best policy option in the round. Aff, put offense on the flow. Explain why the perm is the best option for the round. Or explain why the CP is abusive and how that effects the quality of the debate. Remember to put voters on theory arguments.

 

Case- I love a good case debate. Plain and simple. Neg, you will not win with all defensive args. I need offensive reasons as to why doing the case is a bad idea. If there are case turns, they need to have impacts. Why do these impacts stop the Aff from solving?

 

Theory- All theory args are fine unless you're just running them to mess with people. Voters!

 

The debate needs to collapse down in the end. In the rebuttals, pick the arguments that you are winning and explain why these win you the rounds. I need something stronger than a tagline debate. Explain the warrants of your arguments and always be comparative (have clash).

 

AIM: theprettyone1010

 

I'm pretty much always available. Debate is my life. It's sad, I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm here to judge, I check this site every day so i'll be able to keep up, If you want me pm me. I've judged Virtual Round 5 already (not sure if that means anything but w/e).

 

 

Paradigm:

I would consider myself to be tab. I will vote on what you put on the flow. If you want me to see the round through a different lens then win F/W.

 

Case - is great, if you can hammer them on their case go for it, instead of your generic DA's and CP's. But I would rather see large attacks or take-outs instead of just trying to chip away at it. I will evaluate the stock issues if you warrent why.

 

CP's - are great, and i think many a good neg strats should have one, or would be much better off with one. I will accept any CP, but if you run 6 codo cp's you better win the theory flow.

 

DA's - i love. Run what you have and be smart with them. I will accept them even if they are 'shitty' because if aff does nothing beyond calling them 'shitty' then it will probably flow neg. Aff if your going to make the arg that the DA is generic then you better tell me why that is bad.

 

K's - I've read the majority of Nietzsche's work, read Zizek, and have only currently touched on D&G. The reason i have is to understand the K's i was reading in round. I will view the K any way you tell me to, but please understand what you are reading. I won't be as swayed to vote on it if you don't understand it, but i won't ignore it if you win it when I fill out the ballot.

 

Theory & F/W - As a tab guy, i think that theory is highly needed in many cases. Because I will take any arg presented, if the other team objects then they need to run theory. I dont have a view on what is legit or illegit that is for the debators to flesh out on the theory flows.

And for F/W i kinda explained that earlier, i will take anything but if you want me to view the round a certain way, then win F/W. I will also accept K's of F/W , for example the Johnson cards that are used with a Nietzsche K.

 

T- I enjoy a good T debate. I dont enjoy running T as a time suck.I love hearing it, i love reading it. But i will be less likely to vote on it if the neg 2nc or 1nr spends anything less than 1:30 - 2 min on it. If it really is untopical than make it a big deal, dont just blip on it and then move on to the rest of the args. But dont worry aff, if you win T = no voter, then i wont hold anything against you

 

I think this pretty much covers every thing, if you want to ask questions just pm me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh what the hell. i'll judge if wanted--caveat being that my PMs are quite full, so you may need to instant message me. this is okay, because i'm on AIM nearly 24/7. the screenname there is "dangersevedge".

 

i'm a freshman in college; i debated in kansas; if you need to know more, you can click here http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sevedge%2C+Chris

 

but the basic point you're going to get from that is that i like clash and will vote on creative arguments [or traditional ones] as long as they are explained well. i keep a tight flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hell, if sevvedge is doing it;

 

i'm a sophomore in college, did four years of policy in kansas, now do NPDA parli stuff and also judge in Kansas, Iowa, and wherever else I can get away.

 

In terms of a paradigm; I'm more likely to vote on policy-type arguments, because that's what I'm familiar with and ran in high school, although I'm getting more comfortable with critical argumentation. regardless, I expect arguments to be well-articulated; if you don't understand it, I'm not going to want to do the work for you.

 

i like teams who look like they're actually reading their opponent's evidence and not their tags, and I like creative and/or case-specific strategies, which I interpret as teams actually thinking about what their opponents are saying. Oh, and clash.

 

in terms of theory, i don't mind theory arguments being run for strategic purposes, but if you really want me to vote on it, you're going to have to spend a lot of time on it, and not just blip out "voter for fairness and education."

 

and in an effort to avoid being interventionist, I'll probably adopt the "read the whole thread in one go" thing, so someone'll have to PM me when the rounds' over or if we need to discuss an extension or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ill judge i debate in high school so i know my stuff pretty well for the africa topic so pm me if u need a judge plus i check this site all the time and i love radical arugments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, now i actually have time to do this. my paradigm is laziness. it's kind of like being tab, but more like being lazy. i don't like work, at all. don't leave me any work to do, because you probably won't like the way i do it, and therefore won't like the way the decision comes out. i am fine with the k, tough to get to vote on T, usually unmoved by theory debate, and almost always annoyed by stupid-ass positions that some people seem to find funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in.

 

Paradigm: I will vote on anything, but only if it is warranted. Like Dan I do not like to do much work. On topicality I tend to think limits are the best standard for evaluating topicality. I'm familiar with most kritiks and am happy to judge/vote on them. I too like having the work done for me in debates. This means I want a lot of impact calculus, comparison, and evaluation done by the debaters. If one side has evaluation and the other does not, I will not do work for you. I also enjoy listening to "crazy" arguments if you want to run them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll also judge if you would like.

 

Paradim:

 

I am an experienced high school debater and have a pretty good grasp of this years topic. I am cool with any type of debate, just make it warranted and debate it out well. I think evidence quality and very specific warranted arguments are a must is these debates due to the judges reading everything and the opposite team having days to examine your argument. Reading arguments that normally work on catching your opponent off-guard are also a bad idea- T "should is the past tense of shall" is a time skew against yourself if the opponent can write an effective word efficient block. Some specific things:

 

T: I would probably default to a competing interpretations framework for judging topicality, however I believe that in most cases the aff's reasonable interpretation actually turns out to be better when examined under a framework of competing interpretations.

 

K's: K's are fine, but I think people often win on K's that shouldn't, just because the opponent was unprepared or made really bad arguments. If you are attempting to win the K on the neg, explain the implications and how the alternative specifically solves, and the framework in which I should view the round. If you are aff, destroy the alternative.

 

Case: I often hear from people about how case debate is so amazing. However, I think unless teams have good offense, most case debates often go affirmative. Therefore, case debates are best coupled with a couple of very powerful case turns with good impacts, or a disad.

 

Disads: Due to the tons of aid given all the time, any good DA needs to have really good uniqueness evidence and a specific link. You have 48 hours before prep starts for the 1NC, use it.

 

Counterplans: Specific counterplans are the best, PICS that the affirmative will have offense against are good. PIC'ing out of capital letters is not good. Consults can be good. Reading lots of abusive perms on the affirmative is a bad idea. Multiple conditional arguments are probably a bad strategic decision in these online debates, and I often find them to be less educational and therefore open to theory debates.

 

Performance: I think this would be nearly impossible in an online debate. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

There is not an argument I won't vote for. The above are just arguments I think are good and that I would enjoy judging- I also enjoy debate as an activity that challenges my beliefs and makes me see different points of view, so if you feel you have a good position, run it.

 

Finally- The 2NR or 2AR should definitively win the debate- don't let me decide it, make it so it's impossible to vote against you. Impact calculus, "even if" statements, etc are all important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge if anyone wants me to. In high school, I debated for four years and cleared at NFL Nationals twice. Although I didn't qualify to the TOC, I often debated on the national circuit. I can judge the high school topic or the college topic.

 

My paradigm is fair gameplayer. I will evaluate the round based on whatever framework you set. I have no predisposition, but I think the aff is just as responsible for the framework as the neg is. I believe in a structured line-by-line debate where are arguments have clear grounds and warrants. Any argument works for me as long as you can debate it well. The only prerequisite to the debate is fairness. I tend to think that if debate really is a game, both teams should have a fair chance of winning it. In other words, if you're a cheater, be sure to justify it. And if you're a whiner, you still have to prove the abuse and prove why the opposing team completely screwed you over. But I'm one of the few judges you'll have who loves theory debate.

 

On specific arguments, I have a few notes. When debating topicality, the neg should do at least do a good job proving the interptation, the violation, the standards, and the voters. If the aff wins even one of these, the argument is usually over. Also, a conceded disad might not be enough for me to vote neg, so just keep that in mind. Make sure to do the impact calculus for disadvantages if you want to win. For kritiks, make sure to debate the framework of the round. If the alternative has a built-in framework, the aff should not ignore it. Likewise, the neg should be able to explain how I should evaluate the round.

 

Finally, I believe that the aff has a prima facie burden. I have no predisposition on what that even means, but just know that the aff can't just say "this is why you can't vote neg, judge". There has to be something there for me to vote aff.

 

That's it basically. You can ask me questions, but I'm basically tabula rasa as far as you guys should be concerned. And I'll give detailed RFDs.

Edited by aburo
updated bio
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High School Debater (3 years). I'm somewhat experienced and have qualified for States and NFLs. I'm eager to judge any round...

 

 

PARADIGM:

 

First on top, I'll say that I like Case. When the Neg actually sits down with the 1AC and then points out some key flaws or misconceptions to me, that's gorgeous. Even better when the Affirmative comes back and traces how the case operates in relation the D/As or any other arguments in the round. That said, I'm more than willing to judge the other stuff:

 

The usual lineup is fine.

T: I'm cool with it. Don't make it the only issue of the round or you'll bore me to death. If the only issues in the 2NR are procedurals, I'll be somewhat peeved.

 

DA: I view these as the ever-present offensive weapon. As long as you have somewhat specific links or at least ones that don't clash, run as many as you want. Having them correlate with specific Case strategies can be pretty sexy, too.

 

CP: Meh. I view the 1AC as something that should be constructed carefully so I'm hesitant to vote for a CP that just piggybacks off of the 1AC cards or text. That said, I'm still all for clever CPs...

 

K: If it's generic, don't run it. If you think it links specifically, go for it. I love good Kritikal debate and I'll eagerly vote for a team that sustains one. Being able to communicate it and defend it in CX, along with a strong link level debate goes a long way.

 

Overall: I'll vote for a lot of things. There's no argument that I'll refuse to listen to. I tend to default to PolicyMaker, but I'm Tab and will consider anything you prove to me.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to judge. This is my third year doing high school debate. I'm fine with any arguments made by either team. I don't want to do work at the end of the round to see who wins. tell me why you're winning and in the 2AR/2NR why you won. Do whatever, I'll default policymaker framework until told otherwise. When you extend cards, tell me why they're being extended and don't just reread tag and author. Give me warrants for the extentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'll judge too if y'alls be wanting me. I debated high school policy for three years, and am now a college freshman. I've judged two tournaments on this year's topic, but they were both basically nov tournaments, so I'm not too well up on the topic. That said, I have enough knowledge to understand whatever you want me to. I've been 2A and 2N, so no biases there. I ran a K aff, and went for consult NATO more often than any other argument when I was 2N, so no biases there either. Also I coached a novice team that qualled for the TOC their second year. Also I won every TOC for the past decade.

Okay, enough advertising. Here's my paradigm:

 

1. Persuade me why your argument outweighs there. Line-by-line on the impact analysis is the most important thing. You should be arguing the lbl on their overviews, etcetera. In a virtual debate, there's no excuse for not having clash.

2. I will vote for any argument if you win that I should. What that means is, I don't let any inherent biases rule out any arguments.

3. I will give leeway as follows in an area where the arguments are muddy:

a. ballsy arguments. Unusual case turns, impact turning theory, etcetera.

b. if you don't win the flow on theory I probably won't vote for you

c. default to competing interps on T

d. default to just granting everyone their impacts and comparing the formula (impact magnitude)*(risk of link or risk of solvency) without a well-argued framwork - this works for deont/util as well as fiat/discourse/ontic/etc.

If you have any other questions or want me to judge, PM me.

Also, VD note: due to the format, all the debaters will, so I will also be reading all your cards in detail. If your card doesn't say what you say it does, I will stick you to what it says. However, assuming in-card warrants exist and say what you claim they do, I won't be weighing the strength of in-card warrants unless they're weighed by the debaters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would like to judge a debate if anyone will have me do so. im a high school junior from missouri but i would like to think that i can judge most any style. i will post a more thorough paradigm if asked to judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can judge, though you should confirm with me first. I get pretty busy from time to time, and it's not unprecedented for me to not log on for a week or more.

 

Paradigm

 

I try to be as close to tabula rasa as possible. While we all have preconceptions and biases, they don't belong in a debate decision.

 

I consider myself to be a radical non-interventionist. I won't do your work for you regardless of reputation or general skill.

 

Things I really like:

Clash on the level of warrants - why is your evidence/argument superior?

A well run kritik - go find posts of mine on CX to find out what I mean.

Creative argumentation - find the way to make one card do multiple service etc.

 

Things I really don't like:

T just because I have a T - Dropping T in 2nr because you're losing it is one thing, running a T you know you're dropping in 2nr is another.

Badly run kritiks - If you think a kritik functions like a DA, this means you.

Kritikal affs that make no pretense at topicality.

 

Theory:

I'm an old school debater who has seen the shift in debate for nearly 20 years now. I tend to find that theory can come first in a round, but that should be argued out in round. (T or a discursive kritik can also come first) I do like analysis with theory. The theory arguments I hate are those that spew a bunch of specialized debate lingo and don't really make any sense unless you have 20 years of debate experience. Oh, I'll listen and it'll go on my flow, but you won't make me feel warm and fuzzy.

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...