SMumps
11-30-08, 10:19 PM
Should probably post one of these.
Sean Mumper
Competed: Parli, 2.5 Years
School: Loyola Marymount
DECISION
I default to a paradigm of desireability - I'll vote for the Government if it's a good idea to enact the plan, and vote Opposition if it's not. Specifically, I see things from a strict offense/defense point of view. No offense, good luck.
ASSESSING ARGUMENTS
How important are the following to you as a judge (not important, slightly important, modestly important, very important)?
--Line by line argument
Very Important.
--Big picture/main issues argumentation
Considering the near complete lack of synthesis being done by LOR/PMR's I've come to consider this modestly important. While I can certainly figure out what happened in the debate, it's frustrating and annoying without good analysis from the last speeches.
--Style/Persuasive communication
Slightly Important. I like debaters that are witty, fast, and articulate.
PRESENTATIONAL ASPECTS
How do you feel about the following in parliamentary debates?
--Faster delivery in parliamentary debates
Speed is good.
--Use of gender-culture-orientation neutral or promotion language
I think the notion that what we do in-round has a real impact to be difficult to believe. Unless there's malicious intent, I could care less.
--Weak/bad arguments that are not responded to
Still drops, although doesn't mean you win the specific argument. If they are way ahead on a much better answer (even if you responded), chances are you'll still lose the position.
Caveat: I hate teams that drop shit. It annoys me to no end. Don't.
--Any other presentational aspects you'd like to comment on?
Nope.
STRONG VIEWPOINTS
Do you feel very strongly about any issues that would make it difficult for you to vote for an argument? (e.g. abortion, drug legalization, war on Iraq, malthus, etc.)
Won't give double-win's or double-losses. Will not hold up tab for that.
ARGUMENTS ON TYPICAL POSITIONS
--Government cases (consider key issues that should be presented; policy versus fact versus value versus metaphor topics/cases)
To be clear, I would always prefer a policy. I'd certainly not drop you or crush your speaks for interpreting a resolution otherwise, but I'm a terrible judge when it comes to evaluating fact/value cases. If you want a good, coherent decision from me then run a policy. That being said, Parli has some weird resolutions, so I often give the Government team a bit of leeway when deciding on policy/fact/value.
--Topicality/link arguments (consider when topicality arguments are justified; do you need standards; can the government lose on a technically incorrect definition/interpretation; how do you weigh competing definitions; must the government present definitions in the first speech)
I love Topicality - maybe it's because I'm so terrible at English that debates about the meaning of words fascinates me. Used to think T is an issue simply of Competing Interps, now leaning somewhat towards reasonability. Because of that, please have that debate in round. With that, I used to think (obvious considering C/I) no in-round abuse was needed. Now I'm not so sure.
Government need not present definitions in the PMC, nor should it. Why give away your interp until the T actually comes out?
Topicality needs standards, yes. Standards are the heart of the T debate for me, so be good here. Predictable Limits is often my favorite standard.
Topicality is always a voter. It is never a RVI. Run that if you want to lose!
--"Generic" Disadvantages (consider how well linked the disadvantage is to the proposal; consider how many links before a disadvantage is too tenuous to seriously consider)
If you can't come up with D/A's that have specific links to the plan then I'm probably not the judge for you. Parli debaters are awful at debating uniqueness. Understand it and argue it accordingly. Control it, baby.
--Counterplans (consider topicality, competitiveness, and conditionality)
You will win my heart with a good CP. The more specific and abusive the better. Very specific PICs make me happy.
CPs can absolutely be topical. They uh, need to be competitive (who would say no to that?), and while I err negative on Condo debates, thats a fun theory debate to have so go to it.
--Critiques/Kritiks (consider specificity of links, how they weigh versus other positions)
I'm going to be honest here and probably lose cool points, but that's okay. I don't enjoy K's. That's not to say I won't vote on them, as I think I'm like 5-0 voting for K's this year (fault of the Gov's). Rather than go into some huge rant about why I don't like them, so just be wary. I'm not versed on critical theory and think most criticisms make totally stupid claims.
That being said, Gov's, please stop sucking. Arguments to make that I enjoy: 1. Alt has no solvency or is bad 2. Perms - MULTIPLE PERMS. Seriously what happened to permutations? Why do Gov's refuse to use their best weapon? 3. Hege 1ac Impacts against K impacts 4. Specificity of the Link 5. Prag Good 6. Counter-K's (coopt, etc) k i'll stop there but please stop just saying awful stuff.
--Counterwarrants--arguments against the resolution that aren't necessarily against the case (consider what a good counterwarrant is; when they are warranted; how do counterwarrants weigh against a government case)
Haha uh, maybe if the Gov is too lazy to say "no link?"
--Value/criteria (consider how important this is to your decision; are arguments unrelated to the value criteria irrelevant to your decision?; must value/criteria be presented in a team's first speech?)
Think V/VC is silly, just say Net-Benefits or something.
Sean Mumper
Competed: Parli, 2.5 Years
School: Loyola Marymount
DECISION
I default to a paradigm of desireability - I'll vote for the Government if it's a good idea to enact the plan, and vote Opposition if it's not. Specifically, I see things from a strict offense/defense point of view. No offense, good luck.
ASSESSING ARGUMENTS
How important are the following to you as a judge (not important, slightly important, modestly important, very important)?
--Line by line argument
Very Important.
--Big picture/main issues argumentation
Considering the near complete lack of synthesis being done by LOR/PMR's I've come to consider this modestly important. While I can certainly figure out what happened in the debate, it's frustrating and annoying without good analysis from the last speeches.
--Style/Persuasive communication
Slightly Important. I like debaters that are witty, fast, and articulate.
PRESENTATIONAL ASPECTS
How do you feel about the following in parliamentary debates?
--Faster delivery in parliamentary debates
Speed is good.
--Use of gender-culture-orientation neutral or promotion language
I think the notion that what we do in-round has a real impact to be difficult to believe. Unless there's malicious intent, I could care less.
--Weak/bad arguments that are not responded to
Still drops, although doesn't mean you win the specific argument. If they are way ahead on a much better answer (even if you responded), chances are you'll still lose the position.
Caveat: I hate teams that drop shit. It annoys me to no end. Don't.
--Any other presentational aspects you'd like to comment on?
Nope.
STRONG VIEWPOINTS
Do you feel very strongly about any issues that would make it difficult for you to vote for an argument? (e.g. abortion, drug legalization, war on Iraq, malthus, etc.)
Won't give double-win's or double-losses. Will not hold up tab for that.
ARGUMENTS ON TYPICAL POSITIONS
--Government cases (consider key issues that should be presented; policy versus fact versus value versus metaphor topics/cases)
To be clear, I would always prefer a policy. I'd certainly not drop you or crush your speaks for interpreting a resolution otherwise, but I'm a terrible judge when it comes to evaluating fact/value cases. If you want a good, coherent decision from me then run a policy. That being said, Parli has some weird resolutions, so I often give the Government team a bit of leeway when deciding on policy/fact/value.
--Topicality/link arguments (consider when topicality arguments are justified; do you need standards; can the government lose on a technically incorrect definition/interpretation; how do you weigh competing definitions; must the government present definitions in the first speech)
I love Topicality - maybe it's because I'm so terrible at English that debates about the meaning of words fascinates me. Used to think T is an issue simply of Competing Interps, now leaning somewhat towards reasonability. Because of that, please have that debate in round. With that, I used to think (obvious considering C/I) no in-round abuse was needed. Now I'm not so sure.
Government need not present definitions in the PMC, nor should it. Why give away your interp until the T actually comes out?
Topicality needs standards, yes. Standards are the heart of the T debate for me, so be good here. Predictable Limits is often my favorite standard.
Topicality is always a voter. It is never a RVI. Run that if you want to lose!
--"Generic" Disadvantages (consider how well linked the disadvantage is to the proposal; consider how many links before a disadvantage is too tenuous to seriously consider)
If you can't come up with D/A's that have specific links to the plan then I'm probably not the judge for you. Parli debaters are awful at debating uniqueness. Understand it and argue it accordingly. Control it, baby.
--Counterplans (consider topicality, competitiveness, and conditionality)
You will win my heart with a good CP. The more specific and abusive the better. Very specific PICs make me happy.
CPs can absolutely be topical. They uh, need to be competitive (who would say no to that?), and while I err negative on Condo debates, thats a fun theory debate to have so go to it.
--Critiques/Kritiks (consider specificity of links, how they weigh versus other positions)
I'm going to be honest here and probably lose cool points, but that's okay. I don't enjoy K's. That's not to say I won't vote on them, as I think I'm like 5-0 voting for K's this year (fault of the Gov's). Rather than go into some huge rant about why I don't like them, so just be wary. I'm not versed on critical theory and think most criticisms make totally stupid claims.
That being said, Gov's, please stop sucking. Arguments to make that I enjoy: 1. Alt has no solvency or is bad 2. Perms - MULTIPLE PERMS. Seriously what happened to permutations? Why do Gov's refuse to use their best weapon? 3. Hege 1ac Impacts against K impacts 4. Specificity of the Link 5. Prag Good 6. Counter-K's (coopt, etc) k i'll stop there but please stop just saying awful stuff.
--Counterwarrants--arguments against the resolution that aren't necessarily against the case (consider what a good counterwarrant is; when they are warranted; how do counterwarrants weigh against a government case)
Haha uh, maybe if the Gov is too lazy to say "no link?"
--Value/criteria (consider how important this is to your decision; are arguments unrelated to the value criteria irrelevant to your decision?; must value/criteria be presented in a team's first speech?)
Think V/VC is silly, just say Net-Benefits or something.