Smartthrob
10-29-09, 03:25 PM
I'm posting this here just in case it doesn't make it on debate results for GGI. I'll probably revise it before UOP.
I am the child of two debaters who became coaches and have loved forensics since a young age. I competed and was team captain at Santa Rosa for two years and stayed on to coach for another. I’m prepping for law school at the moment and judging debate rounds to support the activity that I enjoyed so much. I also judge Policy, LD and Parli at the high school level regularly. Here’s how to win my ballot:
I am not tabula rosa. Please do not tell me things that are patently false. Obviously, parliamentary debate requires a certain suspension of disbelief in-round and I most certainly engage in that; I will listen to your arguments as they are presented in round and make a decision based upon them. I cannot check your evidence or “read your cards” in round, but I will not weigh falsehoods/lies in your favor. Shoot for probability rather than mere plausibility in your scenarios/analysis whenever possible.
DO NOT UTILIZE MISOGYNISTIC, HOMOPHOBIC OR RACIST LANGUAGE. In the same vein, I will never vote for rape = good or genocide = good args. Don’t bother making them.
Speed/spread: I’m fine with flowing spread, but please make it for a good reason (because you are giving me a lot of in depth analysis and complete arguments) and not just to blip things out. I will write them on my flow, but I will not weigh them heavily.
Topicality is fine, but only when the link to case/res is justifiable. I dislike timesucks. I will vote on RVIs.
I’m cool with whatever framework you want to use in round as long as you can justify it. I like experimenting with new things, so don’t feel obligated to always make me a policymaker.
Kritiks/Critical theory/Kritikal Affs: Live it, learn it, love it. I expect you to do the same. I expect a well-reasoned link to either case or the resolution. In the same vein, I expect your K to be MEANINGFUL. Understand the theory behind the arguments that you are running, have a genuine advocacy and do not bite your own K. Performative contradictions tell me that you are attempting to co-opt genuine, real world movements in order to win debate rounds and to me that is absolutely abhorrent. I will drop you. I can go either way on alternatives (by the way, “educate yourself!” “free your mind!” are not an alts.) but at least give me a concise explanation as to how your advocacy does not utilize the mindset you kritik. Irony/Baudrillian K’s are fun.
Topical CP/PICS/Floating PICs: I go either way on these based on the in-round args. If you’re going to run them, be prepared to defend on the meta-debate level. Gov teams must make well-fleshed out meta args for me to vote on them, a poorly linked shell won’t fly. Topical CP’s should be competitive with P at the minimum. I can go either way on conditionality, so make the args.
Politics DA’s: I don’t mind them, particularly when pertinent to case, but my feelings on generic positions still apply. “Political capital” args are tiresome round after round. If the other team offers a moral imperative to case I am unlikely to see a political capital DA as mitigation of that. Make sure your link to case isn’t wiped out by fiat; telling me “such-and-such Senator won’t vote for it, therefore Plan won’t pass” is dumb and a waste of my time.
Impact calculus is key. I want you to impact every argument/position that you run with outlined terminal impacts and then weigh them out for me from your perspective in the rebuttal. Justifying your positions will go a long way with me. Obviously, dropping turns or impacts (ie: the flow) are still super important, but if one team shows me a comparative advantage to voting for them, that’s where I’ll pull the trigger.
DO NOT INTERRUPT YOUR PARTNER’S SPEECH. It tells me that what they have to say is unimportant and undermines your arguments. DO NOT BE A SMUG JERK, EITHER. If teams are of equally matched skill, I don’t mind nastiness/rivalry, but if you are clearly more skilled or experienced than your opponents, please remain gracious.
Feel free to ask me anything else you might need to before the round.
I am the child of two debaters who became coaches and have loved forensics since a young age. I competed and was team captain at Santa Rosa for two years and stayed on to coach for another. I’m prepping for law school at the moment and judging debate rounds to support the activity that I enjoyed so much. I also judge Policy, LD and Parli at the high school level regularly. Here’s how to win my ballot:
I am not tabula rosa. Please do not tell me things that are patently false. Obviously, parliamentary debate requires a certain suspension of disbelief in-round and I most certainly engage in that; I will listen to your arguments as they are presented in round and make a decision based upon them. I cannot check your evidence or “read your cards” in round, but I will not weigh falsehoods/lies in your favor. Shoot for probability rather than mere plausibility in your scenarios/analysis whenever possible.
DO NOT UTILIZE MISOGYNISTIC, HOMOPHOBIC OR RACIST LANGUAGE. In the same vein, I will never vote for rape = good or genocide = good args. Don’t bother making them.
Speed/spread: I’m fine with flowing spread, but please make it for a good reason (because you are giving me a lot of in depth analysis and complete arguments) and not just to blip things out. I will write them on my flow, but I will not weigh them heavily.
Topicality is fine, but only when the link to case/res is justifiable. I dislike timesucks. I will vote on RVIs.
I’m cool with whatever framework you want to use in round as long as you can justify it. I like experimenting with new things, so don’t feel obligated to always make me a policymaker.
Kritiks/Critical theory/Kritikal Affs: Live it, learn it, love it. I expect you to do the same. I expect a well-reasoned link to either case or the resolution. In the same vein, I expect your K to be MEANINGFUL. Understand the theory behind the arguments that you are running, have a genuine advocacy and do not bite your own K. Performative contradictions tell me that you are attempting to co-opt genuine, real world movements in order to win debate rounds and to me that is absolutely abhorrent. I will drop you. I can go either way on alternatives (by the way, “educate yourself!” “free your mind!” are not an alts.) but at least give me a concise explanation as to how your advocacy does not utilize the mindset you kritik. Irony/Baudrillian K’s are fun.
Topical CP/PICS/Floating PICs: I go either way on these based on the in-round args. If you’re going to run them, be prepared to defend on the meta-debate level. Gov teams must make well-fleshed out meta args for me to vote on them, a poorly linked shell won’t fly. Topical CP’s should be competitive with P at the minimum. I can go either way on conditionality, so make the args.
Politics DA’s: I don’t mind them, particularly when pertinent to case, but my feelings on generic positions still apply. “Political capital” args are tiresome round after round. If the other team offers a moral imperative to case I am unlikely to see a political capital DA as mitigation of that. Make sure your link to case isn’t wiped out by fiat; telling me “such-and-such Senator won’t vote for it, therefore Plan won’t pass” is dumb and a waste of my time.
Impact calculus is key. I want you to impact every argument/position that you run with outlined terminal impacts and then weigh them out for me from your perspective in the rebuttal. Justifying your positions will go a long way with me. Obviously, dropping turns or impacts (ie: the flow) are still super important, but if one team shows me a comparative advantage to voting for them, that’s where I’ll pull the trigger.
DO NOT INTERRUPT YOUR PARTNER’S SPEECH. It tells me that what they have to say is unimportant and undermines your arguments. DO NOT BE A SMUG JERK, EITHER. If teams are of equally matched skill, I don’t mind nastiness/rivalry, but if you are clearly more skilled or experienced than your opponents, please remain gracious.
Feel free to ask me anything else you might need to before the round.