Jump to content

DavidGriffith

Member
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

DavidGriffith last won the day on July 1 2018

DavidGriffith had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

14 Good

1 Follower

About DavidGriffith

  • Rank
    Varsity
  • Birthday 06/06/2002

Profile Information

  • Name
    David Griffith
  • School
    Oak Park River Forest
  • Biography
    I'm a varsity policy debater for Oak Park River Forest High School.
  • Location
    River Forest, Illinois

Recent Profile Visitors

1252 profile views
  1. I think it was sufficient - I don't really think that you needed anything more than durable fiat because the card is 1. old and 2. about sqo legislation.
  2. I guess I'll pick this one up - I vote aff. Fiat solves the solvency deficit since the 2NR doesn't explain why durable fiat doesn't avoid the deficit entirely. I default to assuming the aff fiats implementation and enforcement of the aff, which means that the aff ensures that UDL is implemented properly. The 2NR also doesn't extend an actual response to the fiat question, only asserting that the 1AR dropped all of the 2NC arguments. There isn't enough in the 2NR to warrant a presumption ballot anyway. A few notes for the aff: - 1AC is ridiculously overhighlighted and you need to rethink how you format it. Every card in the 1AC should have a purpose. If you do not have a reason for it being there, you shouldn't have it. Highlight warrants, and don't have too many cards that say the same thing. - I maybe would've gone for 50 state fiat in the 1AR since you didn't have all that much to cover, just a personal thing though. - 2AR overview makes me sad. The order should just be "case". - Your 2AC overview is too long, and a lot of that work can and was done on the line-by-line. I wouldn't have a 2AC overview at all if possible as long as you can make those points clear at other points in the debate. A few notes for the neg: - On the flip side, every card you read is highlighted to literal death. Please, please cut that down. - Strategy was kind of sketchy in the 2NR, don't just go for one case argument, especially one that isn't all that strong. - You spend way too much time saying what the aff's argument is when doing line-by-line. You only need to say "they say X", rather than some long proclamation about the in-depth warrants of the aff's argument. Good debate y'all!
  3. My guess is that the recent announcements over a new policy debate website and the Evazon scandal stuff prompted the owner to try to revitalize the website.
  4. I mean I don't hate the new formatting... seems like it might be too late though.
  5. I'd like to negate on education one more time if anyone is down for that.
  6. Hey, not judging but a quick piece of advice: Ableism/structural violence inevitable is a straight up garbage argument. Soft-left affs are never, ever going to resolve structural conditions 100%. The idea of those affs is to make the world more livable for people suffering in the status quo. Not doing something because it doesn't resolve all of ableism is a terrible mindset to take to problem-solving. That pretty much allows the status quo to remain since no one solution will resolve all of our problems.
  7. lmao this shit 10 years old why are people asking for it again
  8. Not giving you new 2AR theory there - I can't evaluate a debate that doesn't have a possible neg response. I don't care how techy you want me to be, you should explain your arguments. The arguments didn't make any sense in the 1AR so the 2AR is just adding salt to that wound. You straight up don't explain anything on that page, so I didn't evaluate it.
  9. Okay, since RFDs are public according to the postings, I will write everything here. I'm not going to go super in-depth, just going to evaluate the round. I do not understand why I should vote aff coming out of the 1AR. While the 2AR has a few warrants as to why an aff ballot is a good idea, I do not think that the 1AR has anything beyond theory as a justification for voting aff, so I'm not willing to give the 2AR new explanation. Thus, this debate came down to the theory shell. I ended up voting negative in this debate. There are very little warrants as to why I should reject the team that are responsive in any way to the 2NR claim that 1AR theory means I should not be relaxed in allowing 2AR extrapolation. The only impact I have to theory is "psychological violence" which is clearly bad, but I do not have a warrant as to why I should prioritize this over the counter-interp debate which the 2AR does a poor job of handling. I do not think that the 2AR's answer to the counter interp is good enough. I think that the 2NR wins the claim that I should endorse the best model of debate based off of testing arguments and providing the best education in the debate round. I do not think that the 2AR has enough explanation as to why I should prioritize endorsing a safe debate space as a pre-requisite to endorsing the neg's model of debate, which the 2AR never actually talks about. I think that the discussion claims are also poorly handled by the 2AR. The aff makes the claim that trauma already happened and discussion doesn't prevent that, but I do not have any explanation as to why a discussion cannot resolve the impact in debate. I think that the Roskoski evidence is good enough to pull the trigger on this argument, since the "interpersonal transactions" claim is not what the card is contingent upon. I had to intervene way too much in this debate because the aff never actually does line by line. The aff says they're responding to an argument, but they never explain how arguments actually interact with each other. I am not willing to do the work for you. I think had the 2AR only gone for theory and had more warranted analysis about why I should endorse their model of debate, it could've been a pretty easy aff ballot. Speaker Points: Aff - 27.6 Neg - 28.3
  10. Any reason I haven't judged either round or is that just how the pairings came up?
  11. Decided to write a new paradigm... Greetings! My name is David, I go to OPRF in Illinois. About half the time, I'm a 1A/2N, and the other half I am 2A/2N. TLDR - Do what you like, I love a good FW debate, explanation outweighs evidence, extra speaker points for a great case debate, tech determines truth Kritiks Naturally, this is the first place most people go when they look at paradigms. I am not too well read on most K lit. I choose to spend my time cutting PTX updates rather than obscure postmodernism. This, however, does not mean I dislike the K. I think a K debate can be educational, and provides good insight on how the world works from a different perspective. I also think it gives people room to express their beliefs within what I consider to be an accepting space (for the most part). I will not connect the dots for you. I need link contextualization, impact debate, and alt debate. I do not think Ks must have an alt. I think that kicking the alt in the block or the 2NR can be very strategic for the neg. I'm of the mindset that 4 minute overviews can be easily integrated into the line by line. I hate having to get a new sheet for an overview, especially when I don't feel the overview needs to be there at all. Short overviews are great, but beyond a few lines, I'd rather just hear it on the line by line. When I read Ks, I read Security and Neolib. With a few exceptions, these are the only things that I actively read and cut evidence about when it comes to critical literature. Security, when done correctly, is my favorite argument in a debate round. I find it to be true, but I will gladly listen to any aff that refutes that claim, because there are certainly holes in that K. As the TLDR said, I don't care what you do as long as you do it well. DAs PTX is great. Federalism is great. Relations are great when the topic is right. I find that internal link explanation is a dying art in policy debate. Just as you would the case, you need to win the moving parts (U/q, Link, I/L, Impact) to win a DA in front of me. You shouldn't skirt one of these questions to focus on another if the aff has spread their responses evenly. It pains me to see aff blocks organized poorly. You should be able to read uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact takeouts at the top, then throw whatever else below that. Attacking each level puts the neg in a lot harder position than reading 7 thumpers and an impact takeout. I think that evidence indicts can get aff teams a long way here as well. DA evidence isn't ever really that great. Call that out. Forcing the block to read more evidence is useful because it doesn't provide a ton of room for new args for the 1AR to answer, and when it does, they're minimal and cross applications can prove to be good enough in that circumstance. CPs Great. Explain it. Explain the net benefit. No problems, or anything tricky here. I will judge kick the CP by default. However, I can be swayed on this issue. Case Do it. Negs need to engage the case more. I am the type of judge to vote on presumption based off of a really specific and well explained solvency takeout, if the 2NR goes for a presumption claim on that flow. Impact turns are also amazing, I think that there are tons of underutilized tactics for neg offense on the case. For affs, I think that your case can get you a long way in impact calc debates. Use the impacts of the aff to refute DAs and Ks. It is an underused tool that makes you look really good when you know how arguments interact on the flow. Theory I hate theory debates with a burning passion. I do hold some pre-determined views on theory that can be shifted, but know this: condo is good for up to 3 condo advocacies, 50 state fiat might be bad but it might not be, consult CPs are really bad when they don't have a case specific advocate, international fiat is kinda silly, negs get fiat (I will dock speaker points if you go for no neg fiat, although I'll vote for you), PICs are good but Word PICs are bad, severance and intrisicness are only good if someone tells me they are, otherwise I don't care Misc. Extra speaker points for pursuasive rebuttals, smart cross applications, and anything that would make me go "wow, I didn't even think of that". Make jokes, have fun. Not being so serious made debate a less tiresome and more enjoyable activity, and it will make you friends as well. Calm down, have a laugh.
  12. I'll be third on the panel. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...