Jump to content
TheSteveWoodExperience

Kansas Judge Philosophies

Recommended Posts

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the online judge philosophies website that many national and college judges post on, but I was thinking it might be beneficial to have a thread where prominent Kansas judges post how they feel about certain arguments, because sometimes it's nice to know that in fact your judge is not down with topicality or a conditional advocacy etc.

 

Please no High School Student Postings.

 

I think the following should be included:

 

How does the judge feel about Topicality?

 

How does the judge feel about Conditionality(the abilty to kick out of a position with a text at any time)?

 

How does the judge feel about the Kritik?

 

How does the judge feel about non-textually competitive counterplans?

 

How does the judge feel about counterplans without solvency advocates?

 

How does the judge feel about Plan Inclusive Counterplans?

 

How does the judge feel about Word PICs?

 

How does the judge feel about Representational PICs?

 

How does the judge feel about Politics DAs?

 

How does the judge feel about speed(not the drug)?

 

What paradigm does the judge evaluate in?(this is somewhat silly but cliche)

For example, Offense/Defense etc.

 

Other Issues:

 

If anyone has arguments I'm missing then let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I count as prominent but I've judged some debates with Kansas teams that attempted to adapt and I think misread me so why not...

 

How does the judge feel about Topicality?

If you have a good T violation for the aff then don't underestimate your chances with this argument. I enjoy a good T debate and if you have some game don't be afraid to go for it. That being said this does not mean that all T violations are awesome generally one that has a term of art about the topic is best and you'll be able to get much farther ahead if you can explain precisely how the topic is limited properly under your interp than absent it. Also be clear to explain precisely how not having those limits puts the neg in an untenable position. If the only impact is that one more case gets added to the topic then I doubt I will care.

 

How does the judge feel about Conditionality(the abilty to kick out of a position with a text at any time)?

If you can defend it then do it. If you think its bad say it should be dispo or some interp that just prevents multiple conditional worlds but allows at least one or two args to be conditional (like one conditional advo all others dispo or one condo alt and one condo cp).

 

How does the judge feel about the Kritik?

It's like any other argument - if you can explain the precise interconnection between the aff and your link argument and explain exactly how this would play out with your impact arguments then cool if not then don't read. As for the alternative - there are some criticisms where I think the alternative has to advocate some kind of material action. K's like Cap Bad are a good example as large elements are decidedly material and there is a material structure to capitalism. If its just about epistemology or ontology then its fine if its not a material advocacy but I'm probably not going to like your alt too much if you spend most of the shell talking about corporate exploitation or the destruction of the environment and then spend no time explaining how your alt changes policy or politics or read some stupid thing like withdrawing from the ideology of capital.

 

How does the judge feel about non-textually competitive counterplans?

I think counterplans should be functionally competitive. I can be persuaded that textual competition alone is a good standard but not easily.

 

How does the judge feel about counterplans without solvency advocates?

Stupid you should never do it. It's like reading an aff without a solvency advocate. That's the minimum standard for whether or not an argument should be predictable and fair.

 

How does the judge feel about Plan Inclusive Counterplans?

It's fine.

 

How does the judge feel about Word PICs?

They're fine if you can explain functional competition or see my above about textual competition.

 

How does the judge feel about Representational PICs?

That's a floating PIC, they probably aren't ok, but I'll vote on them if it's not contested theoretically but it doesn't take much to demonstrate why I should reject it on a theoretical level.

 

How does the judge feel about Politics DAs?

I don't particularly like judging them because for some reason debaters tend to assume that even though they've been thinking about their internal link story and (arguably) have a reasonable grasp on it that that means I can pick up what their story is in the course of a 45 second card extension. If you can explain the disad's actual story to me at some point as opposed to getting sucked into the LBL then I'll probably like it a lot more and be able to judge with much less intervention.

 

How does the judge feel about speed(not the drug)?

It's fine.

 

What paradigm does the judge evaluate in?(this is somewhat silly but cliche)

For example, Offense/Defense etc.

Offense/defense unless told otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how many of you are familiar with the online judge philosophies website that many national and college judges post on, but I was thinking it might be beneficial to have a thread where prominent Kansas judges post how they feel about certain arguments, because sometimes it's nice to know that in fact your judge is not down with topicality or a conditional advocacy etc.
My guess is that this will be extremely ineffective, since 80% of all judges you will face outside of districts will be parents. Then when you figure of the 20% who have useful paradigms, only 5% know about this thread or any other website for posting paradigms, you are talking about a very small percentage of the pool that you might get as judges. You’d be better off just asking preround.

It will actually likely be counter productive since the sample you get to respond is not a good indication of the general pool, and so you will be preparing for the vast minority.

 

This is actually a fairly good illustration of what is good for national circuit is not necessarily good for Kansas circuit. On the national circuit the pool is much smaller and more inbred so getting a judge’s paradigm ahead of time is much more valuable.

 

That being said, I’m bored today, so I’ll fill mine out. This will likely illustrate why I’m often stricken by coaches who know me from judging their kids. Heck, I’d strike myself (as long as my school still gets credit for me being a judge in the pool)

How does the judge feel about Topicality? It is absolutely, 100%, with out a doubt NOT an issue of fairness or reasonability. The decision of the ballot is to affirm or negate the resolution, so the affirmative team’s plan must be a valid result of the resolution and provide a reason for the resolution to be affirmed. So it is all or nothing from the onset of the 1AC. I get super pissed when the 1AC isn’t topical and neg doesn’t run T. I also get super pissed when 1AC isn’t topical for one reason, and neg runs violation on the wrong word/phrase/interpretation.

 

How does the judge feel about Conditionality(the abilty to kick out of a position with a text at any time)? I prefer the negative (and affirmative) to have an advocacy, so conditionality seems to run contrary to that, but if in the rebuttals the negative (or affirmative) can justify their strategy and forms a cohesive strategy, then I’m okay with it. I find that when there are two competing strategies to choose from, and the team kicks one, they always seem to kick the one I was buying.

 

How does the judge feel about the Kritik? There is only one? If you can tell me why it has K’s rather than C’s perhaps I’ll vote for it. Seriously, some social criticism is good, some is bad. The one’s I believe in prior to the round I’ll vote for often. Those I don’t, well lets just say you only have 26 minutes to persuade me of something I likely spent entire semesters writing papers against while in college working toward my undergrad in philosophy. And you don’t know which ones I buy and which ones I don’t. I will give you a hint, if the author was a raving paranoid, I probably wrote a paper on the flaws in the author’s underlying ontology.

 

That being said, last year I did vote for a kritik that I find the authors to be fundamentally flawed, but the debaters “won” the arguments in the round, so it is possible, just an uphill battle.

 

How does the judge feel about non-textually competitive counterplans? That the counterplan is not competitive within the text? I don’t get it. Sounds dumb. If I have to listen to arguments about the text of the counterplan makes it competitive, then I’m probably getting pissed and will be taking it out on whoever initiated the dumb discussion.

 

How does the judge feel about counterplans without solvency advocates? Same as plans without solvency advocates. Um, persuade me the plan/counterplan will solve and we are good. Do you need a single author? No, that seems dumb to me. But you probably should have some evidence that the plan will solve.

 

How does the judge feel about Plan Inclusive Counterplans? For the most part I think they are intellectual theft and plagiarism, and violate academic ethics for which teams should not only lose but perhaps, if that is their regular strategy, the administration should be contacted for review for suspension or expulsion. Since that viewpoint is not likely to catch on, I love to vote on theory on why PIC’s are bad. Look, if the plan can’t be a minor repair to the plan of the status quo, then the counterplan can’t be a minor repair to the plan. Also, look to my interpretation of T to figure out I can’t stand topical counterplans.

 

How does the judge feel about Word PICs? Hopefully you can figure out that if PIC’s are bad, than any subset of PIC’s are bad. Combine this with the answer you see under textually competitive, and you probably would be able to see smoke from my ears during this round. I’d probably throw my hat across the room (inside joke).

 

How does the judge feel about Representational PICs? Seriously? Really?

 

How does the judge feel about Politics DAs? 75% of the time the link violates the very concept of fiat, and thus the DA doesn’t link or should be link turned with some simple theory. However, 25% of the time the link is actually a result of the impacts of the plan passing, and thus with a good link the debate seems okay. However, all too often, the impact scenario goes crazy. If passing/not passing a bill will cause nuke war with 100% certainty within 2 logic steps, I fully believe that the members of congress could see those 2 steps and would do the opposite. DUH! Perhaps keeping the impacts at the level we’d believe is more persuasive (like Democrats really are too stupid to fix the economy).

 

How does the judge feel about speed(not the drug)? If you’ve seen any of my other posts you’d know that I feel debate is about developing life skills and one of the biggest is the ability to verbally communicate in a persuasive manner. That being said, because of my experience you can speak faster for me, but I’m extremely annoyed with hyperventilation and double clutching. If I didn’t hear it, I stop flowing, and you are then wasting your time.

 

What paradigm does the judge evaluate in?(this is somewhat silly but cliche) For example, Offense/Defense etc. I’ll admit I was pulled into the world of offense/defense, but I’m now resisting that mindset. Change is inherently a risk and the devil I know is better than the one I don’t know. I’m a mix of policy maker (best policy option) and games playing (best synergy of arguments and strategy). Honestly, I’m a very scary judge because my overall paradigm is don’t piss me off, and apparently kids love to piss me off. So I vote for who pissed me off the least. Some kids figure out how to do that, some don’t. And if something pissed me off last round, than I’m hyper sensitive to it the following round (like running T on the wrong word or running a non-mutually exclusive counterplan). I hate that I do this because it reduces my predictability, but if you really want to win my ballot ask me who ticked me off recently and adapt against that. It is like the two troll riddle in Labyrinth (where you get one question to one of the two trolls, one always tells the truth, and one always lies, but you don’t know which is which).

 

I think you are really just playing around with some negative strategies and wanting to see how well they would play out in Kansas. Based on the list you proposed, if you have me for your judge, I think your best strategy is to tell me how bad a judge I am and convince me that I should accept cool contemporary argumentation.

 

BTW, is it appropriate to mock other judge entries? So far it is only Alex, so not much to mock, but others might be rife with mocking opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, is it appropriate to mock other judge entries? So far it is only Alex, so not much to mock, but others might be rife with mocking opportunity.

 

I don't think I could stand being mocked! Ooops, too late...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does the judge feel about Topicality?

 

I love T but I've rarely seen a good T debate. In general, I feel that for the Neg to win you have to go for it for all 5 mins of the 2nr (clear, slam dunk wins are an exception to this). I feel that most teams misunderstand the concept of "abuse". Potential abuse is not something I vote on, but it can be used as a measuring stick to evaluate competing interpretations... Just like in round abuse.

 

How does the judge feel about Conditionality(the abilty to kick out of a position with a text at any time)?

 

Generally OK... although I feel that running contradictory arguments is usually a bad strategy. I could be convinced in round that Conditionality is bad. By default I think that the negative is limited to one advocacy and it is generally better to stick with it the entire round.

 

How does the judge feel about the Kritik?

 

I'm not a K guy. Don't assume that I know anything about your argument. In order to win my ballot I have to:

 

1. Understand your argument. (Reading it to me at 200+ wpm does not impart knowledge) I also don't have the ability to walk up to you and take cards from you after you read them and study them in prep time. You have to explain your argument in plain English (not buzzword terms your K author uses) at a slower than top speed pace.

 

2. Understand the role of the ballot in the round. Just saying that Fiat is an illusion doesn't make it go away, you have to explain why your K's world view is better. Explain in detail how the alt functions in the round.

 

3. Beat the perm. I'll be honest, I look for the path of least resistance and the perm is usually it. This means that your K should have a GOOD link story and an alt.

 

4. Be good. Look, I don't really like Kritiks but that doesn't mean that I won't (and haven't) vote(d) for them. If you are good, take it as a challenge. You get to show me how cool your argument is.

 

5. Also, you'd better not roll your eyes when you read this (or I tell this to you before the round). If you lose the round don't tell your coach that you lost because your judge was a "total K n00b". I've judged more rounds than you have debated... show some respect, I'm kind of a big deal.

 

How does the judge feel about non-textually competitive counterplans?

 

I feel that CPs should be functionally competitive.

 

How does the judge feel about counterplans without solvency advocates?

 

In a perfect world they would have one, but it really depends... I've seen really good Affs that didn't have rock solid solvency advocates for the specific plan action. I've also seen Affs where there is a clear solvency advocate but every card is from one dude's book (but the dude is kind of a crackhead).

 

How does the judge feel about Plan Inclusive Counterplans?

 

They're alright... consult CPs are generally pretty abusive. Agent counterplans are ok but you'd better be able to show that your agent COULD do the plan. Just like anything else, I could be convinced that PICs are bad in round.

 

Small tangent here: (Caution real talk ahead)

 

CP theory debates piss me off. Not because I don't like CP theory... I do. It's just that pretty much every CP theory debate I've ever seen has been both sides reading their camp blocks right on top of each other in the line by line and calling it a debate. CP theory is an argument that can be a great tool by the aff... Look at it like running T on neg, virtually zero risk, doesn't take long to read, and you could win the whole round on it. It's a powerful offensive weapon that is rarely deployed effectively... that said, you have to understand the argument.

 

Start by writing your own blocks. Pick one argument to start (pics bad, cond bad etc) if you don't understand get help from your coach (or failing that, the internet.) Figure out the intricacies of the argument and most importantly what you have to do to win it.

 

In round, understand that blippy theory blocks are impossible to flow, judges need pen time and again we don't get to yank it from you after you read it... So now that you are running the argument to WIN rather than to just take up speech time (like before). Slow down, and explain your arguments.

 

 

How does the judge feel about Word PICs?

 

I've have never judged one. See my views on Kritiks. In general, I'll listen to anything and try not to be biased.

 

How does the judge feel about Representational PICs?

 

I'm not sure I know what this is.

 

How does the judge feel about Politics DAs?

 

Generally OK. On some level I share the view that these can sometimes be fiated away, but I'm not going to intervene on behalf of the Aff because of it.

 

How does the judge feel about speed(not the drug)?

 

Fine as long as you are clear. You should slow down for things like Kritiks and Theory blocks. Your performance matters in a debate. Don't just read your 1AC as fast as you can just because you can and then have 45 seconds left at the end. Practice varying your speeds and your tone of voice for emphasis. People who are easier to understand are easier to vote for. If you have to go fast in the 2nr, you're probably doing it wrong.

 

What paradigm does the judge evaluate in?(this is somewhat silly but cliche)

For example, Offense/Defense etc.

 

Offense/Defense I guess. When most people say this they really mean just Offense. I value Defensive arguments as well. I think that you can win a disad as Aff with a really good defense argument. I also think that you can win the case debate on Neg with really good Solvency takeouts. Sell your arguments to me.

 

One of my biggest pet peeves is when teams throw out a bunch of crap and expect me to just figure it all out for them. Your first 45 seconds of your last rebuttal should be spent telling me the story of the round, explaining how all of the arguments interact with each other and why you win. The rest of the speech should be proving your story in the line by line.

 

Other Issues:

 

Arguments live in the line by line. Don't waste a bunch of time giving an overview on every position and then repeating yourself in the line by line. Also, don't read cards in the "overview" and then apply them to the line by line. Overviews on positions in general kind of piss me off and mess up my flow. If you must do them keep them short.

 

If I call for evidence, it had better say what you said it says... if it doesn't you will probably lose that argument even if the other team didn't question the card. I will read the non-underlined parts also. You can call it judge intervention if you want, I don't care. You are accountable for your evidence.

 

If anyone has arguments I'm missing then let me know.

 

How about:

 

Reading Poems, Dancing, Rapping, Singing, Being Silent, etc

 

NO! BAD KITTY!

Edited by t-money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everything is debatable. I try to not come into a debate round with any paradigm. I think it is up to the debaters to give me the framework to evaluate the round. This gives them the ability to argue with each other not only on the substantive issues in the round, but also on HOW the debate should be decided. It also eliminates confusion on paradigms between debaters and the judge (me). Things change over time, for instance, the different PIC distinction is totally over my head. By telling the debaters to not assume that the framework for evaluation has been determined when the judge sits down, this forces those meta discussions to take place.

 

But no one can come into rounds totally devoid of likes and dislikes. So I will answer some of these specific questions:

 

How does the judge feel about Topicality?

I think I have voted on topicality 3 times. Considering I have been judging debates since 1998, this should tell you something.

 

Normally, I find the debates they spur to be tedious and boring. More time spent on theory rather than examining the definitions and violations, figuring out which ones are superior and then determining the proper impact to the violation. Anyone can read a theory block at mach speed, pick the one arguments that the other team did not get flowed (hopefully the judge did though) and try to get the judge to pull an easy trigger on this oversight.

 

But if you are talking about the nuance of words, language, and its usage. Those can be fun. I still can't guarantee I will vote on it though. There better be some big time in round abuse.

 

Cross apply this to all theory debates.

 

How does the judge feel about Conditionality(the abilty to kick out of a position with a text at any time)?

 

Don't have a big deal with it. But, it would give me heartburn if a team ran multiple contradictory arguments, put the other team in an indefensible position; and then kicked all the arguments but the one they mishandled.

 

But then again, everything is debatable; and that type of strategy would be super easy to beat in my mind. (Expose the contradition, laugh out loud at the other team, and give some type of in-round abuse answer, and you would probably be alright) If the other team let you get away with it. More power to you.

 

How does the judge feel about the Kritik?

 

One of the more interesting and educational developments in debate in the last ten years. I think they have a place in a round like any other argument. I think the debaters still have the burden of telling the judge how a critical argument links to the signing of a ballot. It is not an assumption I am willing to give.

 

How does the judge feel about non-textually competitive counterplans?

 

They are open for debate. Cross apply the theory vomit issue from topicality.

 

How does the judge feel about counterplans without solvency advocates?

 

They are open for debate. Cross apply the theory vomit issue from topicality.

 

How does the judge feel about Plan Inclusive Counterplans?

 

They are open for debate. Cross apply the theory vomit issue from topicality.

 

How does the judge feel about Word PICs?

 

No freaking clue what you are talking about. Cross apply the theory vomit issue from topicality.

 

How does the judge feel about Representational PICs?

 

No freaking clue what you are talking about. Cross apply the theory vomit issue from topicality.

 

How does the judge feel about Politics DAs?

 

A good politics debate can be the most fun debate to judge. There is usually plenty of clash and competition. There is the ability to argue every level of the disadvantage. It opens up fun and interesting impact scenarios.

 

The whole story of politics is probably not all that feasible, but then again most of the stuff we deal with in debate is not feasible (I'm looking at you FIAT). A good politics debater is a good debater.

 

How does the judge feel about speed(not the drug)?

 

If you got it, go for it. Be clear, and know when to turn it up or down. Reading a front line of analytical answers at 120% will just make a judge angry. We need some pen time. Don't begin your 1AC at mach speed. It takes us old people a while to get accustomed to your voice, gradually move up in speed over the course of the first 30 seconds.

 

What paradigm does the judge evaluate in?(this is somewhat silly but cliche)

For example, Offense/Defense etc.

 

You tell me. I'll evaluate from there.

 

EDIT: One last thing. I don't read evidence. Its is the debaters job to debate and explain, not for me to read all the evidence after the end of the round. You don't want a judge reading evidence (usually it is not that good) and imparting their own opinions into it. No matter how hard you try, we will naturally do it when you give it to us to read. I try to flow everything you say in the course of the round. Thus if you really want to hammer home a specific point, saying "read the Flower in 98 evidence" is probably not a super compelling argument. But, saying "pull the Flower in 98 evidence that says 'Bryan Dreiling is the coolest person in the world'" is probably way better.

 

Typed out quickly, forgive an grammar, spelling, or language comprehension issues.

 

/bd

Edited by B D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, there you have it--all 4 judges who commonly volunteer in KS have posted their philosophies :)

 

good idea in theory, may help at DCI bids more than other tourneys.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does the judge feel about Topicality?

 

Topicality is fine, and I am probably somewhat more likely to negate on this than is the average Kansas judge. I default to a competing interpretations framework. The line-by-line on the standards debate is often important to me.

 

How does the judge feel about Conditionality(the abilty to kick out of a position with a text at any time)?

 

Strongly dislike. Good debate is about good decisionmaking and I expect the negative to make some decisions at the beginning of the round just like the aff does--unlimited prep is not a persuasive response. Pick a consistent advocacy position and defend it. I have voted aff on condo bad (but I won't do so if aff doesn't argue it).

 

How does the judge feel about the Kritik?

 

Alt is critical. I am most likely to vote on a K if it is offered as a net benefit to an advocated policy position. I am not easily convinced that my ballot can serve a constructive purpose outside the world of fiat, except perhaps to punish really egregious in-round misbehavior.

 

How does the judge feel about non-textually competitive counterplans?

 

Depends on the CP.

 

How does the judge feel about counterplans without solvency advocates?

 

In most cases I will presume some degree of solvency deficit when engaging in my decision calculus.

 

How does the judge feel about Plan Inclusive Counterplans?

 

Often OK, but it depends on the PIC. Plan plus is a no-no. If you opt for a consult CP, it's going to matter whether you have lit specifically saying that the consultation should be specific to the plan action--otherwise I am likely to find the perms persuasive.

 

How does the judge feel about Word PICs?

 

See my comment on Ks above. The PIC will generally need to be justified as net beneficial in policy terms, not just as a matter of discourse. That CAN be done with a word PIC, but a lot of teams that run word PICs don't try.

 

How does the judge feel about Representational PICs?

 

I don't know what these are. If they are what I think they are, they strike me as a negative appropriation of perm ground.

 

How does the judge feel about Politics DAs?

 

Not my favorite argument but generally acceptable. These are among the few DAs where I will listen to an affirmative perm or intrinsicness debate, so it is in your interest to make the link story as strong and as specific as possible.

 

How does the judge feel about speed(not the drug)?

 

Please slow down for long strings of analyticals. I won't be able to get all eight of your one-line responses at 300 wpm, and the ones I didn't get I won't evaluate. I will issue "clear" calls with speaker point penalties along the lines of Tim Aldrete's system. All that said, I am probably a bit faster than you'd assume based on my age and responses to other questions herein.

 

What paradigm does the judge evaluate in?(this is somewhat silly but cliche)

For example, Offense/Defense etc.

 

Standard policy-making calculus: probability x magnitude. If everyone's asserting extinctions, gee, that makes probability pretty important, doesn't it? And that, in turn, makes good defensive arguments very useful in winning my ballot, even if they're not sufficient in the complete absence of offense. Time-frame is a subset of magnitude and is primarily useful as a tiebreaker...but close rounds are common, so it is smart for you to factor TF into your story in second rebuttal.

 

Other Issues:

 

I begin the round assuming that the affirmative will present me with one topical policy proposal and that the negative will present me with one competitive alternative (usually either the SQ or a CP) and that I will choose between them based on the policy calculus above. That I will evaluate the round as a policy maker is pretty much set in stone. The rest of the positions listed above are what I DEFAULT to, but good teams have occasionally talked me out of them.

 

I will not read evidence unless you tell me SPECIFICALLY what I am going to find (or what I am not going to find) when I do so. "This card is terrible" is insufficient.

 

If your 2NR contains complaints about the other team's funding being unspecific, then the likelihood that I will vote for you approaches zero. If your 2AR contains complaints about the negative disadvantages being generic, then the likelihood that I will vote for you approaches zero. If both happen in the same round, I will feign illness to avoid voting. If pressed to do so by tournament officials, I will eat the ballot.

Edited by STADB9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For everyone has posted so far, thank you. I think that all four of you judge a significant amount of elimination debates so it is nice to get a better idea about how you think about debates. Hopefully we can spread the word and get more people to post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll only vote for ASHTAR and e-prime. You can win any argument in front of me - as long as you tell me why it relates to those aforementioned arguments.

 

Family Guy references pre-5th season will give you half a speaker point. Family Guy references post-5th season will lose you a half a speaker point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pssht, no representational PICs?!? Don't worry Reid, KS judges are lame, you're going to be tearing up the national circuit.

 

Can you say 10 TOC bids?

 

Btw, I want STADB9 as a judge. Intrinsicness is legit!

 

Yeah because so many circuit tournaments are within 500 miles. Don't hate on Kansas judges. You shouldn't have to rely on speed and word pics to win rounds. The best debaters can win in front of any judge.

-Also, sorry for posting here because it really should only be for people who judge in Kansas

Edited by Inherencyftw
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You obviously don't know who The Truth is! Don't worry, he'll be a household name after he bids at every national tournament within 500 mi. of KS.

 

Also, I was messing around with Reid, because he probably would consult Ashtar haha. The best debaters should be able to adapt. That said, we should leave this thread subject to KS judge philosophies so The Truth knows what's in store for him.

 

I gotcha - my bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shout out to BD! Glad to hear you are still around.

 

Thanks Brad! I'm still around, not as much as when you were debating ... but I am still around. I will be at Washburn Rural all day Saturday (and maybe some Friday) for anyone interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since I was around/judging, but I'm bored at work, and will be out a lot more this year, so I might as well waste some time.

 

I'll start by saying that I was a CP/Disad debater in high school and that is what I know best. K i understand somewhat, but I need you to help me out a bit more. This also tends to make for a fairer debate in kansas i've found...

 

How does the judge feel about Topicality?

explain your violation well, win standards. I think T is a voting issue and won't buy T isn't a voter. However, Extra/Effects T are imo slightly different, and i will listen to FXT/XT not a voter arguments

 

How does the judge feel about Conditionality(the abilty to kick out of a position with a text at any time)?

Iffy. I tend to lean towards condo bad, but if you defend the theory, you defend the theory.

 

How does the judge feel about the Kritik?

explain explain explain explain explain. don't just name drop and say biopower a bunch and expect me to pick you up. i dont know much k literature, so i need you to tell me. i dont have a problem with kritiks--as long as i can figure out your argument with the aff.

 

How does the judge feel about non-textually competitive counterplans?

okay, but defend the perm

 

How does the judge feel about counterplans without solvency advocates?

if you can logically prove that it works, and they cannot logically disprove you, you can be your own solvency advocate.

 

How does the judge feel about Plan Inclusive Counterplans?

fine, but consult is iffy. i'll listen to theory on both, but more likely to vote on it against consult than, say, XO.

 

How does the judge feel about Word PICs?

dislike.

 

How does the judge feel about Representational PICs?

meh.

 

How does the judge feel about Politics DAs?

go for it

 

How does the judge feel about speed(not the drug)?

if i can understand you you're good. slow down over theory and t though, and punch tag lines.

 

What paradigm does the judge evaluate in?(this is somewhat silly but cliche)

For example, Offense/Defense etc.

Policy Maker. It's hard to pick me up with no offense, but it can be done. win a disad + defense or cp + net ben and you pick up on the neg. can't do that, i go aff. pretty simple.

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...