tarvis79
10-12-07, 07:25 AM
I will be at Colorado College, and maybe some other tournaments later on, so I thought I would put this up.
I view debate as a competitive game, nothing more. The game does have certain rules, but I will listen to arguments about why those rules are illegitimate if you care to present them. I will vote on anything as long as you give me clear reasons why I should.
I try to stick to the flow. If someone tells me the sky is green, I treat it as gospel until you tell me something else. I think I'm pretty good, but I'll yell "clear" if I can't understand you.
On procedurals, I don't tend to buy potential abuse, but that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't run it, just that you'd better be able to defend it. I have a lot of trouble voting for criticisms without alternatives, but I will listen to reasons why I should.
My conservative politics will not play into my evaluation of your arguments, so run whatever you like. I will be pleased if you bother to warrant leftist arguments rather than assuming their intuitive truth like you can with many judges, but I won't punish you for not doing so (unless, of course, your lack of warrants allows the other team to beat your arguments).
I hate to say I have zero tolerance for anything, but I will have a lot of trouble evaluating a fact debate. Unless you can provide me with a coherent framework for evaluating such a debate, I think fact debates default to counting examples or warrants, which is not a productive use of anyone's time. However, if you think you have the fact framework that is objective and usable, then feel free.
For the love, though, weigh impacts. Really. Please. Otherwise, I do it for you, and someone gets very angry that I didn't do it their way.
Have fun, be rude or cordial, I don't care. Just win and be smart.
In case my background is relevant, I did 4 years of parli at Colorado College, 3 years under Bonnie Stapleton and my senior year under Chris Shaw.
I view debate as a competitive game, nothing more. The game does have certain rules, but I will listen to arguments about why those rules are illegitimate if you care to present them. I will vote on anything as long as you give me clear reasons why I should.
I try to stick to the flow. If someone tells me the sky is green, I treat it as gospel until you tell me something else. I think I'm pretty good, but I'll yell "clear" if I can't understand you.
On procedurals, I don't tend to buy potential abuse, but that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't run it, just that you'd better be able to defend it. I have a lot of trouble voting for criticisms without alternatives, but I will listen to reasons why I should.
My conservative politics will not play into my evaluation of your arguments, so run whatever you like. I will be pleased if you bother to warrant leftist arguments rather than assuming their intuitive truth like you can with many judges, but I won't punish you for not doing so (unless, of course, your lack of warrants allows the other team to beat your arguments).
I hate to say I have zero tolerance for anything, but I will have a lot of trouble evaluating a fact debate. Unless you can provide me with a coherent framework for evaluating such a debate, I think fact debates default to counting examples or warrants, which is not a productive use of anyone's time. However, if you think you have the fact framework that is objective and usable, then feel free.
For the love, though, weigh impacts. Really. Please. Otherwise, I do it for you, and someone gets very angry that I didn't do it their way.
Have fun, be rude or cordial, I don't care. Just win and be smart.
In case my background is relevant, I did 4 years of parli at Colorado College, 3 years under Bonnie Stapleton and my senior year under Chris Shaw.