Dodds
02-13-11, 01:51 PM
Section 1: General Information
Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE.
Good parli debate used to be like pornography. You could not really define what made a debate good, you just knew when you saw it. This year things have gotten better, you can almost be sure you’ll see a good debate in most late out rounds because the event has really taken a shape. Teams that are reading a few, better explained, more strategic, shells are getting way more mileage out of them in the block. I like this, it makes the debate seem more debated, rather than tons of illusions to concepts you hope the good two judges just give you, and us is key to the world economy, so there are resource wars (orly?) and then extending the dropped stuff hoping I insert some warrants for you along the way. Turns out, 3 dropped warrants in the shell of a DA beats a dropped impact claim in the 3rd shell. The same can be said, I think, for the K debate, as it has gotten less cheap shot framework intensive and more about comparing the argument to the aff at all levels. If you are looking for what I would like to see to get my ballot, look at the craft of Boulder’s case arguments in UPS semis, SIU’s DA clinics and women vs gbltq at mile high, for some examples of what I think this activity looks like when it is done right. Those are parli debates done the way I enjoy, as subjective as that is.
Let me say one other thing about me, and judging. I take deciding your debates very seriously. I am very passionate about finding the best way to decide debates, and doing my best to apply that to every one I am a part of. I expect to judge the finals of the NPTE every year I don’t have a team in it. I expect to be the highest preferred critic. I expect to be an A for everyone at the tournament. I plan on getting there by taking peoples criticisms and comments as seriously as I take my decisions. I don’t offend easily and cannot get to my goal without debaters telling me how they feel about my decisions. If that’s not easy the day of, make it a month later. You’ll find that I am a really nice guy, and really just like sorting debates, so please talk to me. I want to be the best at this, to the degree everyone around knows it, and that requires each of your help. If you have an idea of how debates should be or judges should carry themselves tell me, and tell me with the gloves off, I won’t be hurt or upset.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Please describe your approach to the following.
1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.
Note: I use points to display my pleasure with strategic choices. Jokes and general ability to fill the gamebreaker also count toward points. NPTE jokes are WoW themed for a big smile and potentially arbitrary .5 points. Never miss a good WWF/E, star wars, video game, internet meme, or debate joke opportunity in front of me. These make my weekends; the sharp contrast of badly forced similes and metaphors with the intensity of verbal sparring gives me so much joy. Can’t turn these blasters to stun, on the ammo clips topic, makes me lol still.
30 “perfect” or to me more like flawless + good joke(s)
29-29.5 Awesome debater in a great round
28-28.5 Great Debater in a good round
27-27.5 Good
26-26.5 epic fail
20-25 n/a – racist maybe?
Below 20 – Perhaps the argument: give 0 points?
2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?
One team will win an interpretation of how the debate should be viewed, that will play heavily into the lens I look at all arguments with. The answer to all can questions is yes, all arguments are allowed in debate, including the argument you should not get that other argument. The winner is usually the one with the best argument on that question. This applies to the concept of contradictions as well. You certainly can (and dare I say should) lose to a well formed, you are contradicting and that’s bad and you should lose for it, argument. That doesn’t mean you just don’t get to do it, or defend having done it.
Read all your new Ks and ideas in front of me. Read the one K you are linking to every topic in front of me. Whatever you think is cause for a debate win, with a warranted explanation of how and why, should be golden with me in the back. I am partial to arguments that K teams consider generic offense against the K typically linking to the K. I’m pretty sure tha’s because I give every argument tons of credit so your alt is often very theoretically powerful to me, and therefore links to a lot of impact turns. Should actually bode well for the neg if you think about it, I think your alt solves. I would say I vote on distinctions between the permutation and the additional things it accomplishes and the alternative failing some when I vote aff, most often on the K. Opposite that, I find the alternative overwhelming the need to do the aff when I vote neg. Of course there are other things these debates could come to, this is just a common place I find them ending.
3. Performance based arguments…
One team will win an interpretation of how the debate should be viewed, that will play heavily into the lens I look at all arguments with. Do whatever you want, explain why it wins, defeat their reasons it loses, and win. Many a team loses trying to do something that is not very competitive with aff performances. Maybe actors don’t get perms, because if they do, you need to actually answer their argument, not just say “oh ya, well I think this is more important.”
4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
I don’t personally believe “in round” abuse is really that real of a thing. In fact, I doubt anyone has ever been abused by a debate. What does happen: things in a debate that distinctly prove the quality of a single interpretation of an issue, phrase, debate practice, or word. That being said, I am also very compelled on T, and potentially more compelled on other issues like spec, that reasonability should be used when evaluation the quality of interpretations (note I am telling you what reasonability means here, you aren’t reasonably topical, it does not mean we kind of meet, it means you have a reasonable interpretation). So here is a free lesson: If you are going to engage any part of T without a counter interpretation other than: we meet (defense against linking to their violation) and T=/= voter, you are wasting time. Otherwise you’ll need a counter interpretation to compare to theirs. Seriously, think about how ineffective defense against their standards, 1 by 1 really is, without a counter interp…Same goes for framing questions like reasonability; does you no good if you are not even a party to the issue you are framing (no counter interp + reasonability=fail, as I said before you aren’t reasonably Topical, you have a reasonable interp)
There is another question about how much you should have to meet to constitute meeting, which has been conflated with the argument reasonability. Rather we should all add: you have to be 100% T to be T, because you can’t be kind of pregnant vs. 1% meet is ok since T is a kill shot (this is where the sentence “if we are reasonably topical” comes from, and then crashes into the separate concept of reasonability framing debate interpretations). Of course these are bad representations of the debate I’m looking for there, but they should indicate the question to be debated.
5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?
Counterplans are good. They make me enjoy the debate, and make them have additional levels of intrigue. You certainly can lose for reading any number of arguments in front of me if their theoretical objection to it sticks and you fail to answer it well. I’ll say in a well-contested theory debate the violator is likely safe with me. I don’t vote against a lot of people on PICS/CONDO/CONSULT/STATES/ACTOR Cps bad. I do vote on A LOT of permutations, because they are begging a legit question about the competitiveness of the CP. I do reject the argument more often when a team loses on theory, and will subsequently reevaluate the debate without the CP (hint: get ahead on this, frame a CPless world if in doubt on theory) of course this does not apply to condo/dispo as it would reward the violator with the thing they wanted. This should not say to anyone on the aff I don’t like or want CP theory in a debate. I in fact think you’d be a fool to leave home without it. I voted for dropped theory over a T shell twice in one weekend. Defense against T as a voter none against CP theory is a slam-dunk for me. If you are in trouble and go for PICS bad in the PMR I’ll be the friendliest ears in the room, just know it’s a long haul (as it should be).
6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)
Yes. More importantly, the argument “new rule” give me a text to all your arguments is stupid. Same goes for “new rule” take my questions. Please give me a text when you have time is a good request. I will not be a party to furthering this as a norm through debate theory. Maybe find the substantive place it impacts the debate and do it there, if you just must have this argument in the debate. Something like the “text do both does not prove our counterplan is not competitive”, or “that’s something we would have settled if you took the POI but now normal means is this”. Of course I’ll flow and listen to these shells, and even vote on a dropped or botched one, but I’d rather just not.
7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
Whatever I feel like or the debaters seem to be agreeing on (read: random). This is a primary task of the debaters, ordering the importance of issues with well-warranted arguments to defend the order of issues.
8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
Whatever I feel like or the debaters seem to be agreeing on (read: random). This is a primary task of the debaters, ordering the importance of impacts with well-warranted arguments to defend their order of impacts.
9. How I flow. (If you read nothing else, read this)
The 1ac is written from top to bottom in a column on the left had side of the page. I break pages for new advantages, or obvious subsections of the affirmative like framework.
I flow DAs on a sheet of their own. Very similar to the way I flow an advantage.
I flow T on a sheet of its own, usually a 1nc consists of an interp/violation and 5-6 symbols signifying everything else you said.
I flow the Net Benefit to CPs on a sheet as if it were a DA, even if it’s something like prez powers good.
***The K is not 4 sheets long to me- I will flow it with its framework at the top straight through to the end of the argument at the bottom. Usually 1 sheet back and front.
LOC case arguments are flowed very similarly to mg off case answers. These two classifications dictate the flow scheme to me. Thus I flow case args from the top of the page they go on, to the bottom. I number them 1- whatever.(I will not “drop down” to their impact so you can force a large arbitrary chunk of blank space into my flow)
I expect the MG to follow the LOC case order and answer each argument by their numbering Example: On the heg advantage; first, they said no impact: 3 responses….second they said heg bad, causes wars, 3 responses…third they said heg decline inevitable ….etc. Grouping is good, it should prevent you from repeating yourself here.
On the off case, I expect the MG to FULLY dictate the order of the debate. I will flow the MG responses to off-case, top to bottom, numbered 1-whatever. This is the best way for everyone to actually follow a parli debate and flow it well IMO. Even if your first arg is perm, and you think that’s an answer to the alt, it’s going on the top of the front of my K flow if you say it first. It’s getting the #1 next to it, and can henceforth be called the mg/2ac #1. Even if the next argument is wrong forum, the third argument is no link, and the fourth argument is no alternative solvency, those will be 2,3, and 4 on my flow. I will not fly all around with you from “page alternative”, to “page links”. This means when going for a long K in the block you should attack it from the MG order, or reverse order if you really want, but don’t start in, what is for me (and should be for everyone :P) the middle.
The MG argument “framework” Ks should not be allowed will get its own sheet if you want. The K “framework” that says weigh our K before the aff is flowed at the top of the K. Anything you, the neg, want from that section to be applied to the MG “framework” Ks not allowed should be cross-applied there.
This same advice applies to DA/T debating only its less bad because no one has tried to get my UQ onto its own sheet yet. The MG args to the DA will be flowed straight down, and should be answered that way. Similarly, I will not drop down to the standards debate, just read 20 T answers numbered 1-20.
Simply put: “on their link—no link” = fail.
Whereas, mg#1 no link, mg # 2 link turn, #3 their link is bad = money
Other notes: I think cross apply and extend are arguments that require warrants. I will assess all arguments and make sure they are not just claims before evaluating them, so find yourself with because coming out of your mouth a lot. Because I find myself saying “this argument…ok, UQ, there is the why for the UQ now the link…”
Dodds.benjamin@gmail.com with questions
Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE.
Good parli debate used to be like pornography. You could not really define what made a debate good, you just knew when you saw it. This year things have gotten better, you can almost be sure you’ll see a good debate in most late out rounds because the event has really taken a shape. Teams that are reading a few, better explained, more strategic, shells are getting way more mileage out of them in the block. I like this, it makes the debate seem more debated, rather than tons of illusions to concepts you hope the good two judges just give you, and us is key to the world economy, so there are resource wars (orly?) and then extending the dropped stuff hoping I insert some warrants for you along the way. Turns out, 3 dropped warrants in the shell of a DA beats a dropped impact claim in the 3rd shell. The same can be said, I think, for the K debate, as it has gotten less cheap shot framework intensive and more about comparing the argument to the aff at all levels. If you are looking for what I would like to see to get my ballot, look at the craft of Boulder’s case arguments in UPS semis, SIU’s DA clinics and women vs gbltq at mile high, for some examples of what I think this activity looks like when it is done right. Those are parli debates done the way I enjoy, as subjective as that is.
Let me say one other thing about me, and judging. I take deciding your debates very seriously. I am very passionate about finding the best way to decide debates, and doing my best to apply that to every one I am a part of. I expect to judge the finals of the NPTE every year I don’t have a team in it. I expect to be the highest preferred critic. I expect to be an A for everyone at the tournament. I plan on getting there by taking peoples criticisms and comments as seriously as I take my decisions. I don’t offend easily and cannot get to my goal without debaters telling me how they feel about my decisions. If that’s not easy the day of, make it a month later. You’ll find that I am a really nice guy, and really just like sorting debates, so please talk to me. I want to be the best at this, to the degree everyone around knows it, and that requires each of your help. If you have an idea of how debates should be or judges should carry themselves tell me, and tell me with the gloves off, I won’t be hurt or upset.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Please describe your approach to the following.
1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.
Note: I use points to display my pleasure with strategic choices. Jokes and general ability to fill the gamebreaker also count toward points. NPTE jokes are WoW themed for a big smile and potentially arbitrary .5 points. Never miss a good WWF/E, star wars, video game, internet meme, or debate joke opportunity in front of me. These make my weekends; the sharp contrast of badly forced similes and metaphors with the intensity of verbal sparring gives me so much joy. Can’t turn these blasters to stun, on the ammo clips topic, makes me lol still.
30 “perfect” or to me more like flawless + good joke(s)
29-29.5 Awesome debater in a great round
28-28.5 Great Debater in a good round
27-27.5 Good
26-26.5 epic fail
20-25 n/a – racist maybe?
Below 20 – Perhaps the argument: give 0 points?
2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?
One team will win an interpretation of how the debate should be viewed, that will play heavily into the lens I look at all arguments with. The answer to all can questions is yes, all arguments are allowed in debate, including the argument you should not get that other argument. The winner is usually the one with the best argument on that question. This applies to the concept of contradictions as well. You certainly can (and dare I say should) lose to a well formed, you are contradicting and that’s bad and you should lose for it, argument. That doesn’t mean you just don’t get to do it, or defend having done it.
Read all your new Ks and ideas in front of me. Read the one K you are linking to every topic in front of me. Whatever you think is cause for a debate win, with a warranted explanation of how and why, should be golden with me in the back. I am partial to arguments that K teams consider generic offense against the K typically linking to the K. I’m pretty sure tha’s because I give every argument tons of credit so your alt is often very theoretically powerful to me, and therefore links to a lot of impact turns. Should actually bode well for the neg if you think about it, I think your alt solves. I would say I vote on distinctions between the permutation and the additional things it accomplishes and the alternative failing some when I vote aff, most often on the K. Opposite that, I find the alternative overwhelming the need to do the aff when I vote neg. Of course there are other things these debates could come to, this is just a common place I find them ending.
3. Performance based arguments…
One team will win an interpretation of how the debate should be viewed, that will play heavily into the lens I look at all arguments with. Do whatever you want, explain why it wins, defeat their reasons it loses, and win. Many a team loses trying to do something that is not very competitive with aff performances. Maybe actors don’t get perms, because if they do, you need to actually answer their argument, not just say “oh ya, well I think this is more important.”
4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
I don’t personally believe “in round” abuse is really that real of a thing. In fact, I doubt anyone has ever been abused by a debate. What does happen: things in a debate that distinctly prove the quality of a single interpretation of an issue, phrase, debate practice, or word. That being said, I am also very compelled on T, and potentially more compelled on other issues like spec, that reasonability should be used when evaluation the quality of interpretations (note I am telling you what reasonability means here, you aren’t reasonably topical, it does not mean we kind of meet, it means you have a reasonable interpretation). So here is a free lesson: If you are going to engage any part of T without a counter interpretation other than: we meet (defense against linking to their violation) and T=/= voter, you are wasting time. Otherwise you’ll need a counter interpretation to compare to theirs. Seriously, think about how ineffective defense against their standards, 1 by 1 really is, without a counter interp…Same goes for framing questions like reasonability; does you no good if you are not even a party to the issue you are framing (no counter interp + reasonability=fail, as I said before you aren’t reasonably Topical, you have a reasonable interp)
There is another question about how much you should have to meet to constitute meeting, which has been conflated with the argument reasonability. Rather we should all add: you have to be 100% T to be T, because you can’t be kind of pregnant vs. 1% meet is ok since T is a kill shot (this is where the sentence “if we are reasonably topical” comes from, and then crashes into the separate concept of reasonability framing debate interpretations). Of course these are bad representations of the debate I’m looking for there, but they should indicate the question to be debated.
5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?
Counterplans are good. They make me enjoy the debate, and make them have additional levels of intrigue. You certainly can lose for reading any number of arguments in front of me if their theoretical objection to it sticks and you fail to answer it well. I’ll say in a well-contested theory debate the violator is likely safe with me. I don’t vote against a lot of people on PICS/CONDO/CONSULT/STATES/ACTOR Cps bad. I do vote on A LOT of permutations, because they are begging a legit question about the competitiveness of the CP. I do reject the argument more often when a team loses on theory, and will subsequently reevaluate the debate without the CP (hint: get ahead on this, frame a CPless world if in doubt on theory) of course this does not apply to condo/dispo as it would reward the violator with the thing they wanted. This should not say to anyone on the aff I don’t like or want CP theory in a debate. I in fact think you’d be a fool to leave home without it. I voted for dropped theory over a T shell twice in one weekend. Defense against T as a voter none against CP theory is a slam-dunk for me. If you are in trouble and go for PICS bad in the PMR I’ll be the friendliest ears in the room, just know it’s a long haul (as it should be).
6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)
Yes. More importantly, the argument “new rule” give me a text to all your arguments is stupid. Same goes for “new rule” take my questions. Please give me a text when you have time is a good request. I will not be a party to furthering this as a norm through debate theory. Maybe find the substantive place it impacts the debate and do it there, if you just must have this argument in the debate. Something like the “text do both does not prove our counterplan is not competitive”, or “that’s something we would have settled if you took the POI but now normal means is this”. Of course I’ll flow and listen to these shells, and even vote on a dropped or botched one, but I’d rather just not.
7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
Whatever I feel like or the debaters seem to be agreeing on (read: random). This is a primary task of the debaters, ordering the importance of issues with well-warranted arguments to defend the order of issues.
8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
Whatever I feel like or the debaters seem to be agreeing on (read: random). This is a primary task of the debaters, ordering the importance of impacts with well-warranted arguments to defend their order of impacts.
9. How I flow. (If you read nothing else, read this)
The 1ac is written from top to bottom in a column on the left had side of the page. I break pages for new advantages, or obvious subsections of the affirmative like framework.
I flow DAs on a sheet of their own. Very similar to the way I flow an advantage.
I flow T on a sheet of its own, usually a 1nc consists of an interp/violation and 5-6 symbols signifying everything else you said.
I flow the Net Benefit to CPs on a sheet as if it were a DA, even if it’s something like prez powers good.
***The K is not 4 sheets long to me- I will flow it with its framework at the top straight through to the end of the argument at the bottom. Usually 1 sheet back and front.
LOC case arguments are flowed very similarly to mg off case answers. These two classifications dictate the flow scheme to me. Thus I flow case args from the top of the page they go on, to the bottom. I number them 1- whatever.(I will not “drop down” to their impact so you can force a large arbitrary chunk of blank space into my flow)
I expect the MG to follow the LOC case order and answer each argument by their numbering Example: On the heg advantage; first, they said no impact: 3 responses….second they said heg bad, causes wars, 3 responses…third they said heg decline inevitable ….etc. Grouping is good, it should prevent you from repeating yourself here.
On the off case, I expect the MG to FULLY dictate the order of the debate. I will flow the MG responses to off-case, top to bottom, numbered 1-whatever. This is the best way for everyone to actually follow a parli debate and flow it well IMO. Even if your first arg is perm, and you think that’s an answer to the alt, it’s going on the top of the front of my K flow if you say it first. It’s getting the #1 next to it, and can henceforth be called the mg/2ac #1. Even if the next argument is wrong forum, the third argument is no link, and the fourth argument is no alternative solvency, those will be 2,3, and 4 on my flow. I will not fly all around with you from “page alternative”, to “page links”. This means when going for a long K in the block you should attack it from the MG order, or reverse order if you really want, but don’t start in, what is for me (and should be for everyone :P) the middle.
The MG argument “framework” Ks should not be allowed will get its own sheet if you want. The K “framework” that says weigh our K before the aff is flowed at the top of the K. Anything you, the neg, want from that section to be applied to the MG “framework” Ks not allowed should be cross-applied there.
This same advice applies to DA/T debating only its less bad because no one has tried to get my UQ onto its own sheet yet. The MG args to the DA will be flowed straight down, and should be answered that way. Similarly, I will not drop down to the standards debate, just read 20 T answers numbered 1-20.
Simply put: “on their link—no link” = fail.
Whereas, mg#1 no link, mg # 2 link turn, #3 their link is bad = money
Other notes: I think cross apply and extend are arguments that require warrants. I will assess all arguments and make sure they are not just claims before evaluating them, so find yourself with because coming out of your mouth a lot. Because I find myself saying “this argument…ok, UQ, there is the why for the UQ now the link…”
Dodds.benjamin@gmail.com with questions