topspeaker70
12-01-09, 01:28 PM
Please pass this on, cut/paste to the appropriate "Wiki,", etc.
I will be judging both Parli and NFA-LD this weekend at Fall Champs (Mt. San Antonio College) and will probably be judging for Glendale College (CA) at Spring Champs and the CC State Tournament at least.
I have no intention of being a "regular" on the NPDA circuit, and, unless GCC goes to PRP, I probably will not be judging at any "post-season" tournaments in college this season.
However, just so everyone knows...
1. I have NO OBJECTION whatsoever to "speed." However, I do not like gibberish, incoherence, jargon, and ungrammatical word salad. I believe that a good college debate should be fully comprehensible to, and ought to be enjoyed by, the average American college graduate, whether he/she has "debate experience/expertise" or not. Please debate in short, clear, concise - BUT COMPLETE - English sentences. And if you wish to employ [GASP!] "public speaking skills," you will find a receptive audience in me.
2. I PRESUME that the published rules of the debate - whether it's the NPDA rules, the NFA-LD rules, or the recently-adopted PSCFA "Mission Statement." govern the debate, and will be followed. If you take a contrary position, I am open to argument, but the burden is on those who deviate from the rules.
(BTW: I have not - at least to date - voted solely upon a "rules violation.")
3. In Parli, I would prefer that the Opp/Neg "split the block." I do not like duplication of argument between the two Neg/Opp speakers, and it thoroughly screws up the flow sheet.
4. I am usually a high-pointer. However, I believe that - IF a ballot says "rate the speakers on a 1-25 or 1-30 scale," etc., that is the range of possible points. I often give 30's (or 25's, if that's the top). However, once I did give a 6... and I have also given a 30+. This concept of "don't give anything lower than a 15" (or whatever) strikes me as patently counterintuitive.
5. THIS & THAT: Other "preferences" I know of...
(a) I actively dislike the terms/phrases "time-suck, (diversion)" "peanut gallery (audience)" "risk of solvency (opportunity for solvency)" and "you'll BE [sic] voting (you should vote and/or please vote)." In other words, persuade me - don't dictate to me.
(b) I don't need - and don't want to hear - a lot of verbose, prolix, boring, canned substructure on a T argument! All I'm really interested in is - IS there a violation or not? If there is, I'm voting Opp/Neg absent a good reason not to vote on T.
(c) I LIKE "suicide T." I also like "suicide K's." I like gutsy debaters with the courage of their convictions. In other words, if you REALLY BELIEVE that you've got a "silver bullet" argument, that's all I want to hear.
(d) Apropos of (c), supra... your time is valuable. My time is valuable. Please don't waste it on a lot of sophomoric, supercilious gibberish you don't take seriously.
(e) If I'm NOT flowing - that's a good thing - because that means I'm listening especially carefully.
GOOD LUCK TO ALL!
I will be judging both Parli and NFA-LD this weekend at Fall Champs (Mt. San Antonio College) and will probably be judging for Glendale College (CA) at Spring Champs and the CC State Tournament at least.
I have no intention of being a "regular" on the NPDA circuit, and, unless GCC goes to PRP, I probably will not be judging at any "post-season" tournaments in college this season.
However, just so everyone knows...
1. I have NO OBJECTION whatsoever to "speed." However, I do not like gibberish, incoherence, jargon, and ungrammatical word salad. I believe that a good college debate should be fully comprehensible to, and ought to be enjoyed by, the average American college graduate, whether he/she has "debate experience/expertise" or not. Please debate in short, clear, concise - BUT COMPLETE - English sentences. And if you wish to employ [GASP!] "public speaking skills," you will find a receptive audience in me.
2. I PRESUME that the published rules of the debate - whether it's the NPDA rules, the NFA-LD rules, or the recently-adopted PSCFA "Mission Statement." govern the debate, and will be followed. If you take a contrary position, I am open to argument, but the burden is on those who deviate from the rules.
(BTW: I have not - at least to date - voted solely upon a "rules violation.")
3. In Parli, I would prefer that the Opp/Neg "split the block." I do not like duplication of argument between the two Neg/Opp speakers, and it thoroughly screws up the flow sheet.
4. I am usually a high-pointer. However, I believe that - IF a ballot says "rate the speakers on a 1-25 or 1-30 scale," etc., that is the range of possible points. I often give 30's (or 25's, if that's the top). However, once I did give a 6... and I have also given a 30+. This concept of "don't give anything lower than a 15" (or whatever) strikes me as patently counterintuitive.
5. THIS & THAT: Other "preferences" I know of...
(a) I actively dislike the terms/phrases "time-suck, (diversion)" "peanut gallery (audience)" "risk of solvency (opportunity for solvency)" and "you'll BE [sic] voting (you should vote and/or please vote)." In other words, persuade me - don't dictate to me.
(b) I don't need - and don't want to hear - a lot of verbose, prolix, boring, canned substructure on a T argument! All I'm really interested in is - IS there a violation or not? If there is, I'm voting Opp/Neg absent a good reason not to vote on T.
(c) I LIKE "suicide T." I also like "suicide K's." I like gutsy debaters with the courage of their convictions. In other words, if you REALLY BELIEVE that you've got a "silver bullet" argument, that's all I want to hear.
(d) Apropos of (c), supra... your time is valuable. My time is valuable. Please don't waste it on a lot of sophomoric, supercilious gibberish you don't take seriously.
(e) If I'm NOT flowing - that's a good thing - because that means I'm listening especially carefully.
GOOD LUCK TO ALL!