Jump to content
Nonegfiat

Cross-X Classic: Nonegfiat & AQuackDebater vs TheSnowball and CynicClinic

Recommended Posts

Well, it was first brought up as a hypothetical and now it's happening for real. Me, AQuackDebater, CynicClinic, and TheSnowball, are having a 4 person vDebate. And not just one vDebate, but two! (We'll be switching sides between the two rounds)

 

We're doing this NDT style, so we're looking to fill out a panel of 5 judges. If you're interested in judging just reply to this post with your paradigm (If you've already posted your paradigm on the recent Online Debate Tournament thread, you can just let us know and we'll check for you)

In the coming days, we'll announce the panel, and eventually get the round started!


(As this is a demo debate, research will take time, but we wanted to get a head start on finding judges. After we find the panel we'll begin the round as soon as we can!)

Edited by Nonegfiat
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I'm new to vDebates, you might not want me, but I'm willing to judge if you need me. 

My paradigm is on the ODT thread if you want to read it

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll throw my name in the pool-

 

TLDR: you do you, impact stuff out just don’t run edgy stuff (racism good, K’s bad, stuff like that. I’m looking at you Patrick)

 

Basic:

 

Tech>truth, however there has to be some sort of explanation for why it’s an issue if you want me to evaluate it correctly

 

Neg gets 1 condo CP and 1 condo K. I can be persuaded otherwise but you better provide one heck of an abuse story

 

On T I tend to see a lot of reasonability/competing interns debates be two ships passing in the night, one of those being the titanic because most of these debates are blippy and not very well covered. That being said I tend to be non-lenient to either side until convinced. Run a bright line or reasonabulity or else it’s a guy check that I would rather not have to do

 

On high theory K’s: I won’t know what you’re saying most of the time, so explanations would be great. I tend to believe that most K links are to the squo so I tend to be persuaded most by links specific to the method, content and thesis of the aff rather than the generic stuff. K’s that I’m probably comfortable with right now are Cap and Queerness, what that means in terms of start is up to you

 

CP/DA’s: I like them, I’ll vote on them, I run them usually. CP theory is ok but I don’t really evaluate it that much or often and it won’t become an issue unless it’s either dropped or you provide actual abuse

 

T: love it, feel it’s quite under-used and used as a throw away arg. A good T debate will make me happy, a bad t debate will make me sad. Make sure you Impact out your standards and voters enough so I know why the heck I evaluate the shell. I tend to be persuaded most by limits, let that be what you make it. Make sure you cover the other teams interp. Case lists are cool so use them. I also don’t believe T is inherently violent, try to persuade me though

 

I will NOT grant an RVI on T, however I can be persuaded on theory however it will be an uphill battle

 

K aff’s: they’re cool, as long as they’re linked to the res and not the native whale hunting aff I’m fine with them. Explain your method and why that needs to be debated on the aff. Warning I have a small lean towards the neg on the FW debate but not enough to where you should avoid reading what you want.

 

FW: I slightly err neg on this, read a TVA. Also make sure when you’re answering FW to provide individual reasons as to why your method and debating it in the round is key, DA’s to FW are lit.

 

Theory: run what you want unless it’s plain stupid (cube spec). Make sure to actually give me an interp, violation, standards, voters and an implication. I tend to err drop the arg unless it’s something bad (condo is a drop the team in my book however that can be persuaded otherwise)

 

Memes and vine references make me happy. Those and some sort of nerdy reference to something will make me happy which will make your speaks happy which will make you happy.

 

Feel free to ask me more questions

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can judge - I'll TheTrashDebater's template:

 

I’ll throw my name in the pool-

TLDR: I'm to voting for anything, ASPEC, OSPEC, Rights Malthus (BUT NOT baudrillard), HOWEVER, you have to win that these are capital T Truth in order to win my ballot

Basic:

Truth>Tech - Fair warning, I'm going to spend the next few days reading every single word in your evidence and if for a moment I suspect that you are mischaracterizing your evidence, I shall report you to Tabroom immediately!!

 

Clipping - If you are exposed, please read clipping good, it really makes my day. I think that because this is a really aff-biased activity, the neg should get some leeway when it comes to clipping, so I usually give them 3 extra lives before I'll get made at them for clipping.

Neg gets as many condo as they want. I really don't give a crap to be honest. The aff needs to stop whining about condo sometimes

 

50 state fiat - NEVER a voting issue, (NEG, add as many planks to that CP as you want, in fact, add another 10 condo planks in the 2nc and I'll give you an extra WHOLE speaker point)

T, I default to competing interps - I think reasonability is an excuse for sloppy debating. My favorite T on this topic was T-Ikonen, so I'm really excited to see what kind of abusive T you will run in this debate! HOWEVER, I will be persuaded that T is whiteness, so Aff, you know what to do.

On high theory K’s: I don't know what this is, why you read this, and how it does anything. They're a NOPE for me.

CP/DA’s: I think there's always a risk of the DA no matter what, so if the neg runs a DA, the aff may as well concede. CPs are ok, I love Process CP like GBNs, they're just so great for education and learning. I really love abusive CPs too, like PICs are my favorite. If you run the most abusive PIC you can get away with, I'll boost your speaks extremely high.

K aff’s: Not a fan, you may as well read the IDEA aff if you want to be "tricky" (i know its the immigration topic but just providing a similar situation to this years topic)

FW: You know what they say, Framework makes the game work

 

I usually err neg on theory because I just like it that way. If you can prove why the plan text is abusive, I'll happily vote you up

 

I love it when you post memes in the speech docs! Make sure they're not racist, homophobic, islamaphobic, transphobic etc. That kind of behavior will NOT be tolerated.

So when can I start judging?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can judge - I'll TheTrashDebater's template:

 

I’ll throw my name in the pool-

 

TLDR: I'm to voting for anything, ASPEC, OSPEC, Rights Malthus (BUT NOT baudrillard), HOWEVER, you have to win that these are capital T Truth in order to win my ballot

 

Basic:

 

Truth>Tech - Fair warning, I'm going to spend the next few days reading every single word in your evidence and if for a moment I suspect that you are mischaracterizing your evidence, I shall report you to Tabroom immediately!!

 

Clipping - If you are exposed, please read clipping good, it really makes my day. I think that because this is a really aff-biased activity, the neg should get some leeway when it comes to clipping, so I usually give them 3 extra lives before I'll get made at them for clipping.

 

Neg gets as many condo as they want. I really don't give a crap to be honest. The aff needs to stop whining about condo sometimes

 

50 state fiat - NEVER a voting issue, (NEG, add as many planks to that CP as you want, in fact, add another 10 condo planks in the 2nc and I'll give you an extra WHOLE speaker point)

T, I default to competing interps - I think reasonability is an excuse for sloppy debating. My favorite T on this topic was T-Ikonen, so I'm really excited to see what kind of abusive T you will run in this debate! HOWEVER, I will be persuaded that T is whiteness, so Aff, you know what to do.

On high theory K’s: I don't know what this is, why you read this, and how it does anything. They're a NOPE for me.

 

CP/DA’s: I think there's always a risk of the DA no matter what, so if the neg runs a DA, the aff may as well concede. CPs are ok, I love Process CP like GBNs, they're just so great for education and learning. I really love abusive CPs too, like PICs are my favorite. If you run the most abusive PIC you can get away with, I'll boost your speaks extremely high.

 

K aff’s: Not a fan, you may as well read the IDEA aff if you want to be "tricky" (i know its the immigration topic but just providing a similar situation to this years topic)

 

FW: You know what they say, Framework makes the game work

 

I usually err neg on theory because I just like it that way. If you can prove why the plan text is abusive, I'll happily vote you up

 

I love it when you post memes in the speech docs! Make sure they're not racist, homophobic, islamaphobic, transphobic etc. That kind of behavior will NOT be tolerated.

So when can I start judging?

 

I agree with most of the stuff here, but why should the aff lose if the plan text is abusive? If anything, abusive plan texts are good because they force the neg to think critically, which is net better for education.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will go ahead and throw my name in the pool, if there's any other questions regarding my paradigms, feel free to PM me.

 

tl:dr : mostly tab, but kritikal arguments need to be explained well and I will default to policy-maker if the round isn't framed for me

 

Tech > truth, unless the arguments are blatantly racist/some other -ism

 

Speed: Normally I put something here, but I feel like this won't be relevant to a v-debate.

 

K-Affs: Gonna be honest here, not something I have much experience with. That being said, I am perfectly fine with them, just be aware you may need to do a little bit more work to justify running something like this with me.

 

Ks: I have more experience with these, but I am not well versed with the lit. Just give me good 2nc/1nr overviews explaining what the k means in laymen's terms and your good.

 

T: I will vote on T, but please don't run T against blatantly topical policy affs. That makes me sad. 

 

Theory: I will vote on it, but it needs to be well justified. Blippy theory purely there to waste time makes me sad.

 

Framework: As I don't have much experience with K-Affs, I don't have much experience with this either. Once again, that being said, I will vote on this if it's well justified. Speaking from my limited knowledge however, I much prefer an argument that actually engages the aff.

 

CP/DAs: Probably what I have the most experience with, I love these and will vote on them along with good impact calc.

 

Case: If you can prove why any part of the aff is false/not a good idea, I will vote neg on presumption, so just keep that in mind

Edited by DogeDuck
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd enjoy judging.

Here's a paradigm:

 

 

I'm a policymaker: 

 

T: Default to competing interpretations, a strong reasonability push is winnable. If you concede competing interps, you'll have to put offense on your interp to win the flow. I will vote on potential abuse. Also if you clearly don't meet don't say you meet. Fam.  (Since this is the immigration topic I have no idea what a T violation would look like, so this would be interesting)

 

DA: 

Links are more important than uniqueness. Case turns are awesome and can usually get you out of not meeting their F/W if it's convincing. Impact calc is important, and would help if it came before the 2NR. Strong internal links chains are more important than strong links. Zero risk is a thing.

 

 

CP:

Neg: Fifty state fiat is good (but its immigration so lol), slightly lean neg on most cheating CPs but theory is winnable. The one thing I'm skeptical about are word pics. If the CP is only competitive through the net benefit you will have to do more work on the net ben. Give me framing (sufficiency, etc). If the aff doesn't make solvency deficits on your CP, you will win a risk of the link to the net ben unless you drop something, and will probably win the round. Tell me why the net ben outweighs a solvency deficit. I judge kick if you tell me to, but affs can refute it in the 2AR.

Aff:   Impact out solvency deficits on the aff (Why is the CP solving a little less unacceptable, etc). Well developed shielding arguments on a perm are a thing of beauty. Even if it still links to the DA, you can always win that it links less.  If you know you're not going to win a solvency deficit to a CP, consider putting a lot of offense on the net benefit or going for theory.

 

K:

Neg: I'm fine with common Ks like Cap/Security, etc. For Ks like DnG or Baudrillard I'm not your guy. Specific links are great. If I don't understand the K enough to explain it I probably won't vote on it, so helpful analytics and overviews on less mainstream Ks would be great. Alternatives need to be contextualized well. On F/W tell me why your impacts are the most important, and why discussing your K is educational/important.

Affs: Affs will get to weigh their affs unless they lose a silver bullet (reps 1st, root cause, etc). Attack alt solvency, make case outweighs args and well developed perms for the aff. Always have a no link in the 2AC unless you wanna go for turns. A mitigated link will help you greatly on the perm.

 

Theory: In round abuse is more persuasive here, although competing interps is still a good model.  Reject arg not team for almost anything except condo unless you give me a reason to. Condo is fine.  1 CP and 1 K is legit. More than 2 and it's debatable. More than 4 and I'm definitely leaning aff. Anything ending with SPEC I would be skeptical about unless there is a very strong potential abuse claim or actual in round abuse. New in the 2 is ok if the abuse comes in the 2AC.

 

Case: Negs should at least try to debate it. Impact defense can be good tiebreakers when it's a close debate. Even if you go for a CP, case in the 2NR is still good. Presumption is a thing. 2AC add ons can be very strategic against CPs that solve a vast majority of your case. You need to win the case to win the round. New in the 1AR is probably Ok unless u go crazy, but negs would most likely get to read evidence in the 2NR.

 

K Affs: Will vote on them, but I am sympathetic to F/W. I think actual in round abuse really isn't necessary. Affs should tell me why your form of education is good, how the negs can engage with your aff, and why your impacts outweigh. If negs can't provide a TVA it'll be harder to win F/W. View TVAs like a counterplan and your net bens are fairness and education. Perming a K is probably your best bet on the aff.

Edited by ZidaoWang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go ahead and throw my name in the pool, even though so many other people have already thrown their names in:

 

Here's my paradigm:

 

I mostly go for kritiks, but I will definitely vote on a traditional team. I started out as a traditional debater and I believe that both styles produce great debates.

 

1. Tech > Truth

 

I'll vote on anything if you impact it out well. I won't vote on theory if the violation is a meme.

 

CP:

 

Fifty State Fiat is probably a true argument, so this is an example of a theory I would vote on if impacted out. I am, however, still very neutral on this. PICs are cool, Advantage CPs are strategic. Perm theory: I will err aff on the cp if the neg concedes the perm and doesn't answer the aff's offense argument. Perms are a test of competition, but don't expect that to stop me from voting on the aff if you don't say this and answer it. I really like the use of advantage cps to take out specific advantages, and I think it is smart.

 

K:

 

Love 'em, but the neg(/aff if you are inclined) HAS to prove that the alt/advocacy does something. "uhh, yeah, simulations, where's my win" won't work. I love biopower, and Agamben is a great guy. I'm not super knowledgeable about DnG or Psycho, but if you argue them, I will make a real attempt to understand your argument (in a Vdebate, I have the time to look shit up!). Be understanding, and show your understanding. Don't run Baudrillard and than be a dick when people ask you a question about it. Don't answer with terms of art. I absolutely love when a team can articulate its argument in layman's terms, and I think that shows a true understanding of the (sometimes dense) philosophical arguments y'all run. I feel like the kritikal community can be kind of mean to people that don't understand what you are talking about, so really make an effort to be a nice guy and explain. If your opponent doesn't know much about the kritik, than suggesting some literature they can read to help them understand it is really only ever a plus. It's super good for your ethos. I'm not saying any of y'all will run/hit a kritik you won't understand in these rounds, but I thought I'd say this anyway. Util is Trutil until proven otherwise. I like util debates, and I really don't have an opinion on which system of morality is better, I just default to Trutil.

 

FW:

 

I err aff on framework, just as a k debater, unfortunately. I have an unconscious bias. However, when the aff runs framework vs a neg critique, I am neutral, as even as a k debater, framework remains one of the best ways a really obscure k can be beaten, especially if you can't run a generic like cap, because you are aff. Smart and unique framework arguments are very welcome, and framework innovation is pretty great.

 

DA:

 

Love em, win uniqueness, do cool impact-y stuff.

 

Case:

 

Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case. Please say stuff on case.

 

But seriously, even if you run 1 off kritik, make an attempt to answer some arguments, just so you can make a smart framework argument about it later.

 

Politics:

 

Fuck you, but than again, I love you.

 

...

 

Yeah, I'll vote on em. Begrudgingly. Riders are the only exception! I love me some rider politics DAs!

 

Tl;dr: I have one of those really generic paradigms like "I'll vote on anything", even if I have unconscious biases towards kritiks. I default to trutil. Yeah.

 

P.S. If you run cap, I expect you to not wear anything store bought and debate on a laptop you created with your own two hands, minecraft style.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need another judge:

 

My philosophy can be summed up to this: to be or not to be. Debate how you wish. If you think the topic is bad switch-side debate resolves that. Evidence quality and explanation is something I hold a high standard to. The amount of time you spend on the flow should be equivalent to the quality of the argument presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know what's going on here, but I'm putting my paradigm here since I'd like to judge and the paradigms topic is kind of dead.

 

 

 

Experience:

- Varsity debater for Oak Park River Forest high school

- The best middle school judge in history

 

 

Broad Generalizations:

- Explain K links

- Condo is probably bad

- I hate theory debates

- You should read a plan but you don't have to

 

 

More Specific Stuff

 

Truth vs. Tech - I don't exactly know where I stand on this issue, so I'll say this: I'm significantly more likely to vote on an argument that is true than a blippy extension of a conceded card that I don't quite understand. Dropped arguments are dropped arguments, but that isn't an excuse to avoid explaining them. If I don't feel an argument has been explained, I won't vote on it unless I have to. Don't make me. 

 

Counterplans: Love them, went for them almost every neg round on the China topic. Must have a net benefit, topical counterplans are great. Try to avoid confusing PICs, but anything with enough explanation of solvency is fine for me. I'm not a fan of theory, but I'll vote on it if it is debated well and it is actually what the round comes down to. PICs are probably bad, consult CPs are ehhh, 50 state fiat is bad, condo is probably bad but I'm very conflicted on this issue, neg gets fiat, international fiat is ehhh, agent CPs are fucking amazing. 

 

DAs: Aff teams should point out how most DAs will probably never happen. Nobody does this. Internal links suck. For most DAs, this is where analytics are the most powerful for me. I think that logical explanations that takeout or prove an internal link chain are much better than an overhighlighted card that says "econ decline". I hate when impacts are just tagged with "Extinction", so don't do that. It's annoying. PTX is great, and I go for it frequently. Federalism is ehh in front of me because I hate debating it but I'll gladly vote on it. Prove a specific link, and you'll make the 2NR a lot easier.

 

Kritiks: Explain the link. Anything that is explained is fine. I'm a policy debater who goes for security and neolib frequently. I have very strong dispositions about security. It is my favorite argument, but that doesn't mean you should skimp. Ks should have overviews, but if you can integrate that into the line by line, bully for you. 

 

T/FW: I have a high threshold for voting neg on T. There needs to be articulated in-round abuse to justify voting for the neg against a policy aff. Against a K aff, I think affs should read a plan and that plan should be topical. However, I think that K affs that are connected to the topic are good for education. Impact turns will be the affs best friend against FW. Just debate out the impacts. I default to competing interps, but can be swayed on reasonability. A good FW debate is my favorite debate, so please please engage. 

Edited by DavidGriffith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to the online tournament?

The Online Debate Tournament is still happening, this extra round is just something the four of us thought we would do for fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm up for it as well

 

Paradigm:

 

Tabula Rasa. I believe debate is up to the debaters. I will evaluate the round based on comparative advantages to voting aff and voting neg (on every flow). I look to framework and framing first, whichever interp wins will be the lens I view the rest of the round through.

 

The K : I will vote for and against K affs. Don't assume I know your literature, explain it to me (conceptually) as if I didn't know what a kritik was. However, I am a k oriented debater, which means you will find I will accidentally do some of the theoretical work for you (I won't vote you down because I felt like the 2nc had too many complicated words for me). Some authors I'm familiar with are: Baudrillard, Lacan, Berlant, Heidegger, Edelman, Ruffolo, Tuck and Yang, and Bataille (to some extent).

 

I'm ok with straight up policy. I won't judge kick unless told to do so.

 

I give most of my feedback and advice after the round, as I don't really know what areas each debater is struggling with until then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on, Wikispaces is closing?! Somebody save the paradigms!

Most are already transitioning to tabroom

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge if this is still happening

 

contrary to my username, not really a K hack - I'm up for anything that's not offensive

 

theory is pretty cool

Ks are cool but explain them

politics or another da and a counterplan is cool too

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...