Lacker
11-14-08, 04:21 PM
Aaron Donaldson - University of Oregon 08-09
Speaking point range – 27-30 by 1/2pts. 27=exceedingly unclear, rude, mean, or confusing. 30= very clear, organized, warranted, impacted, calculated, accurate, and engaging.
Judging:__________________________________________ ______________________________
I try hard to limit the only challenges placed next to arguments on my flow to those voiced by the opposing team but no one is perfect.
The less interpreting I have to do the better so make sure to make time to explain why your warrants/stories as to the ‘truth’ of an argument are better than theirs about its ‘falseness’.
Adapting:_________________________________________ _________________________________
I feel the only audience you should be expected to adapt to should be the other team. While this means I do my best to never vote against interpretations of debate that I disagree with it also means I can get angry when I feel like an experienced team is using its knowledge of theory, jargon, and rate of delivery to negligently or purposefully block access to other teams.
I can’t define ‘negligent’ or ‘purposeful’ but I’ve been known to knee-jerk-lash-out with a ballot. So be nice to others, and answer as many questions as you think they need. Don’t make fun of them.
I’d say the same about attitudes taken by ‘traditional’ teams when they confront ‘policy’ teams.
Rate of Delivery/Theory:_______________________________________
I understand rate of delivery as a tactic but occasionally have trouble keeping up with the fastest in the community. If you wish to go fast I may say “clear” or “slow” if I can’t understand you. Also read above about my feelings regarding blocking access for others in debate.
Fast, redundant, speakers will probably see a minor hit to their speaker points.
OPP TEAMS: - see also GOV TEAMS on T._______________________
I honestly don’t know how I feel about splitting the block. I’d say for opp teams doing it is kind of flipping a coin with me if I’m confronted with offense on it in the PMR.
I’m not very deep on counter plan theory so if you’re going in on ‘status of c/p’ you may want to be a little more explicit than normal when it comes to your warrants.
GOV TEAMS:____________________________________________ ___
Plan is topical if you win T. It’s not if you don’t.
Terminate your impacts in the PMC. Not just on how bad they are, but on how you want them weighed.
If you wish to define the round as a resolution of value or fact I need very clear parameters on how I should compare arguments/examples to determine which are ‘better’ or ‘best’.
I feel PMRs can extend arguments from the PMC that were not extended by the MG but due to a lack of analysis these arguments probably won’t carry a lot of weight with me.
I welcome any and all questions or discussions after the round so long as they don’t get accusatory.
Speaking point range – 27-30 by 1/2pts. 27=exceedingly unclear, rude, mean, or confusing. 30= very clear, organized, warranted, impacted, calculated, accurate, and engaging.
Judging:__________________________________________ ______________________________
I try hard to limit the only challenges placed next to arguments on my flow to those voiced by the opposing team but no one is perfect.
The less interpreting I have to do the better so make sure to make time to explain why your warrants/stories as to the ‘truth’ of an argument are better than theirs about its ‘falseness’.
Adapting:_________________________________________ _________________________________
I feel the only audience you should be expected to adapt to should be the other team. While this means I do my best to never vote against interpretations of debate that I disagree with it also means I can get angry when I feel like an experienced team is using its knowledge of theory, jargon, and rate of delivery to negligently or purposefully block access to other teams.
I can’t define ‘negligent’ or ‘purposeful’ but I’ve been known to knee-jerk-lash-out with a ballot. So be nice to others, and answer as many questions as you think they need. Don’t make fun of them.
I’d say the same about attitudes taken by ‘traditional’ teams when they confront ‘policy’ teams.
Rate of Delivery/Theory:_______________________________________
I understand rate of delivery as a tactic but occasionally have trouble keeping up with the fastest in the community. If you wish to go fast I may say “clear” or “slow” if I can’t understand you. Also read above about my feelings regarding blocking access for others in debate.
Fast, redundant, speakers will probably see a minor hit to their speaker points.
OPP TEAMS: - see also GOV TEAMS on T._______________________
I honestly don’t know how I feel about splitting the block. I’d say for opp teams doing it is kind of flipping a coin with me if I’m confronted with offense on it in the PMR.
I’m not very deep on counter plan theory so if you’re going in on ‘status of c/p’ you may want to be a little more explicit than normal when it comes to your warrants.
GOV TEAMS:____________________________________________ ___
Plan is topical if you win T. It’s not if you don’t.
Terminate your impacts in the PMC. Not just on how bad they are, but on how you want them weighed.
If you wish to define the round as a resolution of value or fact I need very clear parameters on how I should compare arguments/examples to determine which are ‘better’ or ‘best’.
I feel PMRs can extend arguments from the PMC that were not extended by the MG but due to a lack of analysis these arguments probably won’t carry a lot of weight with me.
I welcome any and all questions or discussions after the round so long as they don’t get accusatory.