Odin-X
01-19-07, 05:50 PM
This is a work in progress, but after the Denver swing I thought I should just post it so people have some inkling of how I judge debates.
What I would want to know.
1. I am not the best critic in the world. I easily get lost, and you will confound that by making dumb arguments. This includes arguments that are fascinatingly irrelevent. I.E. Even if I give you full weight of the argument, why in the world would I care? I find this most often in the final rebuttals when people object to new arguments that are meaningless anyway.
2. For me, dumb argument is dumb argument. I TRY to be tabula rasa, but if your best argument with me after the decision is you know it was stupid, and it doesn't make a lot of sense, but they didn’t answer it, I hope that knowledge will keep you warmer than having actually procured my ballot. If I don't understand what you are doing, I probably won't vote for it. Moral? Don't be cute (example, saying they didn't extend the voter on t especially when the voter was never refuted). I am all for hoisting people on their own petard, but conceding dumb arguments to try and gain an advantage runs the potential of confusing me as much as getting you anything. This is particularly because frequently if arguments are making NO sense to me, I don't even flow them. Seriously. You know the noise Charlie Brown hears when the teacher talks? Yeah, that is what some debates are to me sometimes, so your strategic concession of stupidity to get out of your smart argument might not even be on the flow.
3. Don't rely on me to be your intervener. Because I try to be tabula rasa I will sometimes give people the benefit of the doubt on their goofy argument, so cover yourself.
4. I still don't get the MO/LOR split. I let people "split" the block (limitedly, if all the LOR is new....). That is, LOR can make new answers to MG arguments that are new. If you believe that is unreasonable, argue why I shouldn't early and often. I will only protect you as far as you make arguments for me to.
5. If I don't rule on a point of order, it might be because I haven't been able to trace the full line of argument yet. Sometimes taken under consideration means just that. I will check it out later.
6. I frequently find argument intertwined. I am NOT a strict "flow" critic. Sometimes things make more sense to me macroscopically. This doesn't mean I don't flow, nor does it mean you shouldn't go line by line, it just means I process information thematically. See number 2. When extending a topicality argument, some of the arguments are going to inherently include the rationale for it being a voting issue. Just because someone doesn't say "it is a voting issue" doesn't make it not one. I go on spirit not text.
7. COVER COVER COVER. Governments frequently lose in front of me because they haven't completely answered argument. Yes, the time spread is large. Figure out how to deal with that. Maybe it means making sure you win enough of certain issues that others become irrelevent. Maybe it means waxing a little less poetic and actually answering the MO/LOR.
8. I GREATLY prefer when teams do the impact calculus for me. I have frequently found myself giving strong preference to one side because they are successfully weaving the fabric of a complete story for me. Lots of what ifs/conditionals/if we lose this we still win because and this weighs against that … kinds of things. The worse thing you can do is spend the whole round as if you are winning everything because you will typically end up winning virtually nothing. Most things are good for some reasons and bad for others. Your job is to convince we of your position on balance.
9. Finally, my dispositions are changeable, but you will have to invest time and energy moving me. That requires argument. That being said, please don't quote my philosophy to me. I find it most annoying. I know what I wrote, and I know how utterly incomplete a statement it is. This isn't a contract between us where I agree to adjudicate given this paper. I write these as an attempt to give but a small slice of what goes on in my brain when I am making a decision.
VIEWS on positions
Counterplans - like them, theory should be reject the argument, not the team. However, we solve 100 % any risk of a disad begs the question of competition. You win a link to a disad FIRST and then we talk about risk. You don't win risk of a link.
Kritiks - treat them like arguments instead of double speak (so if you speak like Derrida and Foucault write, you are in for a long day) and I might vote for you. You need SPECIFIC reason though. Stuff like ALL state action is racist doesn't cut much weight with me, or rather will be far more easily answered in my mind.
Counter-intuitive argument (Spark, Malthus, Prolif good, Wipeout …). I have probably run most of them as a debater. I think most of them are fairly poor, but fun to pop people that are unprepared. I will literally listen to all of them, but be warned that because I will listen to them does NOT mean I won't vote on their kritik of your repugnant position if they win it.
p.s. If you think I messed up a decision, please let me know. I don't pretend to think I am the best critic. My ego is also not so fragile to think I need to be perfect. I do like to TRY and be the most fair critic I can. I find feedback from debaters important in gauging how I am doing at correcting my judging mistakes. Feel free to ask me how I viewed any particular issue, but understand I am human and falliable. I promise to try and minimize that as much as possible. If you find the need to only be judged by people that think they are Gods, never make mistakes, and will never admit to being wrong, feel free to strike me as often as you can. There will be times I will look at you and say, sorry, I screwed up. It has happened more than I would have hoped this year, but I promise to try and minimize that when I can.
What I would want to know.
1. I am not the best critic in the world. I easily get lost, and you will confound that by making dumb arguments. This includes arguments that are fascinatingly irrelevent. I.E. Even if I give you full weight of the argument, why in the world would I care? I find this most often in the final rebuttals when people object to new arguments that are meaningless anyway.
2. For me, dumb argument is dumb argument. I TRY to be tabula rasa, but if your best argument with me after the decision is you know it was stupid, and it doesn't make a lot of sense, but they didn’t answer it, I hope that knowledge will keep you warmer than having actually procured my ballot. If I don't understand what you are doing, I probably won't vote for it. Moral? Don't be cute (example, saying they didn't extend the voter on t especially when the voter was never refuted). I am all for hoisting people on their own petard, but conceding dumb arguments to try and gain an advantage runs the potential of confusing me as much as getting you anything. This is particularly because frequently if arguments are making NO sense to me, I don't even flow them. Seriously. You know the noise Charlie Brown hears when the teacher talks? Yeah, that is what some debates are to me sometimes, so your strategic concession of stupidity to get out of your smart argument might not even be on the flow.
3. Don't rely on me to be your intervener. Because I try to be tabula rasa I will sometimes give people the benefit of the doubt on their goofy argument, so cover yourself.
4. I still don't get the MO/LOR split. I let people "split" the block (limitedly, if all the LOR is new....). That is, LOR can make new answers to MG arguments that are new. If you believe that is unreasonable, argue why I shouldn't early and often. I will only protect you as far as you make arguments for me to.
5. If I don't rule on a point of order, it might be because I haven't been able to trace the full line of argument yet. Sometimes taken under consideration means just that. I will check it out later.
6. I frequently find argument intertwined. I am NOT a strict "flow" critic. Sometimes things make more sense to me macroscopically. This doesn't mean I don't flow, nor does it mean you shouldn't go line by line, it just means I process information thematically. See number 2. When extending a topicality argument, some of the arguments are going to inherently include the rationale for it being a voting issue. Just because someone doesn't say "it is a voting issue" doesn't make it not one. I go on spirit not text.
7. COVER COVER COVER. Governments frequently lose in front of me because they haven't completely answered argument. Yes, the time spread is large. Figure out how to deal with that. Maybe it means making sure you win enough of certain issues that others become irrelevent. Maybe it means waxing a little less poetic and actually answering the MO/LOR.
8. I GREATLY prefer when teams do the impact calculus for me. I have frequently found myself giving strong preference to one side because they are successfully weaving the fabric of a complete story for me. Lots of what ifs/conditionals/if we lose this we still win because and this weighs against that … kinds of things. The worse thing you can do is spend the whole round as if you are winning everything because you will typically end up winning virtually nothing. Most things are good for some reasons and bad for others. Your job is to convince we of your position on balance.
9. Finally, my dispositions are changeable, but you will have to invest time and energy moving me. That requires argument. That being said, please don't quote my philosophy to me. I find it most annoying. I know what I wrote, and I know how utterly incomplete a statement it is. This isn't a contract between us where I agree to adjudicate given this paper. I write these as an attempt to give but a small slice of what goes on in my brain when I am making a decision.
VIEWS on positions
Counterplans - like them, theory should be reject the argument, not the team. However, we solve 100 % any risk of a disad begs the question of competition. You win a link to a disad FIRST and then we talk about risk. You don't win risk of a link.
Kritiks - treat them like arguments instead of double speak (so if you speak like Derrida and Foucault write, you are in for a long day) and I might vote for you. You need SPECIFIC reason though. Stuff like ALL state action is racist doesn't cut much weight with me, or rather will be far more easily answered in my mind.
Counter-intuitive argument (Spark, Malthus, Prolif good, Wipeout …). I have probably run most of them as a debater. I think most of them are fairly poor, but fun to pop people that are unprepared. I will literally listen to all of them, but be warned that because I will listen to them does NOT mean I won't vote on their kritik of your repugnant position if they win it.
p.s. If you think I messed up a decision, please let me know. I don't pretend to think I am the best critic. My ego is also not so fragile to think I need to be perfect. I do like to TRY and be the most fair critic I can. I find feedback from debaters important in gauging how I am doing at correcting my judging mistakes. Feel free to ask me how I viewed any particular issue, but understand I am human and falliable. I promise to try and minimize that as much as possible. If you find the need to only be judged by people that think they are Gods, never make mistakes, and will never admit to being wrong, feel free to strike me as often as you can. There will be times I will look at you and say, sorry, I screwed up. It has happened more than I would have hoped this year, but I promise to try and minimize that when I can.