Recent Changes

Today

  1. page Ogbuli, Anthony edited TL;DR: TL;DR: Do your Experience: I debated for Homewood Flossmoor in High School for three…

    TL;DR:
    TL;DR: Do your
    Experience:
    I debated for Homewood Flossmoor in High School for three years.
    ...
    for two yearsIyears
    I
    debated for
    General:
    I have a more than decent grasp of debate in general. I judge a good amount of tournaments a year so I have an okay understanding of the topic but don't assume I know every detail and nuance of it. Needless to say you should probably explain your arguments regardless.
    ...
    Substantive framework impacts such as cede the political, agonism, deliberation, etc are generally more persuasive especially against identity based arguments
    T versions of the aff are like perms, why not make several of them?
    ...
    deter you.
    DAs: DAs are also a core debate argument. I am a big fan of politics DA. Specific DAs are always a plus. Contrived DAs are contrived for a reason...and I'll leave it at that.
    ...
    more innovative.
    Case: You should read it. Lots of it. Its good, makes for good debates, and is generally underutilized.
    Topicality: I enjoy good T debates......not like T substantial. Unfortunately T debates are normally really messy, so the team to really put the debate into perspective and be very clear on how the two worlds interact first generally wins. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.
    (view changes)
    5:11 pm
  2. page Ogbuli, Anthony edited TL;DR: Do your thing as long as you do it well. Experience: ... School for 4 three years…

    TL;DR: Do your thing as long as you do it well.
    Experience:
    ...
    School for 4three years.
    I
    ...
    two yearsI am debatingdebated for the
    ...
    at Dallas nowfor three years.
    General:
    Needless to say II have a
    ...
    your arguments anyway.regardless.
    I will evaluate all arguments. I think like most judges I like to believe that I evaluate debate from an unbiased position...but like all judges I do have some predispositions
    If you tell me to star, double star, flag, or read a card and it's trash I dock speaker points 10 out of 10 times.
    I don't like to read a lot of evidence at the end of debates, but I definitely reward good cards.

    Specifics:
    Counterplans:Framework: I judge a ton of these debates. To be honest I couldn't care less about either sides arguments so play ball. These debates are almost always decided by impact calculus, and whether or not the negative is able to absorb some of the affirmative's offense, whether through topical version of the aff, switch side debate, etc..
    You should just debate this however you wish, but if you want to know some of my personal feelings about these debates........
    The aff almost always gets to weigh the aff against Framework.
    The aff doesn't get to perm interps, framework should be about what competing models of debate look like. That being said if you allow the aff to finesse you in this fashion, you're probably going to lose.
    Fairness is an internal link more than it is an impact, but with sufficient work it can be an impact, this is work missing from the vast majority of framework debates. It's probably not the best impact against teams making identity based arguments, against all other teams it should make an appearance.
    Substantive framework impacts such as cede the political, agonism, deliberation, etc are generally more persuasive especially against identity based arguments
    T versions of the aff are like perms, why not make several of them?
    Counterplans:
    I think
    ...
    justify it. If counterplans that compete off resolved, should, etc are at the top of your box, I personally wish your soul damnation, but rarely do affirmative's invest enough in the theory debate on these counterplans for that to deter you.
    DAs: DAs are also a core debate argument. I am a big fan of politics DA. Specific DAs are always a plus. Contrived DAs are contrived for a reason...and I'll leave it at that.
    Kritiks: Over the past couple years I have opened up towards the K a lot. I have
    ...
    previous knowledge. That being said, I'm down otherwise. I think that the framework debates on these are stale and usually worthless. The aff should get to weigh the aff, the neg obviously get their kritik, can we start from here or make these debates more innovative.
    Case: You should read it. Lots of it. Its good, makes for good debates, and is generally underutilized.
    Topicality: I enjoy good T debates......not like T substantial. Unfortunately T debates are normally really messy, so the team to really put the debate into perspective and be very clear on how the two worlds interact first generally wins. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.
    ...
    Smart Analytics can beat evidence
    Uniqueness probably decides the direction of the link
    ...
    overwhelm the linkNewlink
    New
    1AR arguments
    ...
    to some extentPrepextent
    Prep
    time stops
    ...
    to your flashdriveDebateflashdrive
    Debate
    is a game.
    Global Warming is real.

    (view changes)
    5:09 pm

Yesterday

  1. page Zhou, Lawrence edited University of Oklahoma ’18 Bartlesville, OK ‘14 ... MX, Stuyvesant PY PY, Flower Mound MF L…
    University of Oklahoma ’18
    Bartlesville, OK ‘14
    ...
    MX, Stuyvesant PYPY, Flower Mound MF
    Last updated: 3/6/20173/21/2017 for TFA StateOklahoma Regionals
    Email for the chain: lwzhou10@gmail.com
    Any questions, just ask.
    Oklahoma Specific
    Policy
    - I don't judge policy very often.
    - I debate(d) policy at OU, reading mostly policy style arguments although I'm probably not a bad judge for your critical arguments.
    - Most of the stuff for LD still applies, including most of the overview.
    - I have a lower threshold for theory arguments given my background in LD.
    - I'll answer your questions before the round since I don't have many developed thoughts on policy debate.
    LD
    - Yes, I have a paradigm. I prefer debates that are centered on core controversies of the topic utilizing both academic evidence and independent logical thinking. I'm less interested in pure persuasion than most Oklahoma judges and more interested in your arguments.
    - I have voted aff many times on the topic, when I vote neg, it's usually due to a technical mistake on the part of the affirmative, so keep that in mind.
    - I will disclose at the end of the round.

    Overview
    I've found that many people ask these questions when doing prefs so hopefully this should help.
    (view changes)
    3:06 pm
  2. page Datti, Abhilash edited ... General (Short Version) I go to American Heritage High School, and have debated in LD for 3 y…
    ...
    General (Short Version)
    I go to American Heritage High School, and have debated in LD for 3 years now. I should be fine with anything you read, if the warrant for every argument is explained in a manner that I can understand and in a manner that does not prevent your opponent from understanding your argument. This means several things:
    1. BeBe clear if
    ...
    changing anything
    2. If

    If
    you do
    ...
    do this
    3. Do

    Do
    not under
    ...
    will lose
    4. If

    If
    you are
    I’ve dabbled in pretty much every form of LD debate, and as such have developed some ideological preferences towards certain arguments. The following should help you do prefs/prepare for a round in a hurry and will be explained in detail in the longer version of the paradigm.
    Performance/Narratives < SV FWs/ Winter and Leighton etc < Kritiks < Theory < Util/LARP/Generics < FW/Tricks
    I’m pretty easy on speaks and you should get at least 29.5 provided you do the following:
    1. WinWin (if you
    ...
    a 29)
    2. Be

    Be
    relatively clear
    ...
    you to)
    3. Be

    Be
    nice/funny (Jokes
    ...
    nice person)
    4. Give

    Give
    clear overviews
    ...
    things first)
    5. Collapse

    Collapse
    to a
    ...
    resolve it
    6. Demonstrate

    Demonstrate
    a thorough
    Specifics (Long Version)
    Specific paradigmatic issues will be discussed here, so if you accidentally scrolled down and are short on time, scroll up.
    (view changes)
    12:37 pm
  3. page D edited ... Datikashvili, Jeffrey Datta, Maria [Datti, Abhilash] Datti, Abhilash Day, Monica Dayal,…
    ...
    Datikashvili, Jeffrey
    Datta, Maria
    [Datti, Abhilash]Datti, Abhilash
    Day, Monica
    Dayal, Chet
    (view changes)
    12:34 pm
  4. page D edited ... Datikashvili, Jeffrey Datta, Maria [Datti, Abhilash] Day, Monica Dayal, Chet
    ...
    Datikashvili, Jeffrey
    Datta, Maria
    [Datti, Abhilash]
    Day, Monica
    Dayal, Chet
    (view changes)
    12:33 pm
  5. page Datti, Abhilash edited Paradigm General (Short Version) I go to American Heritage High School, and have debated in LD…

    Paradigm
    General (Short Version)
    I go to American Heritage High School, and have debated in LD for 3 years now. I should be fine with anything you read, if the warrant for every argument is explained in a manner that I can understand and in a manner that does not prevent your opponent from understanding your argument. This means several things:
    1. Be clear if you are going to spread, I’ll say clear like 5 times, won’t deduct speaks unless it’s obvious you aren’t changing anything
    2. If you do spread, flashing, emailing, pocket-boxing, or providing a paper copy of your case to either me or your opponent upon request is mandatory, and you will lose the round if you cannot do this
    3. Do not under any circumstance spread against anyone that cannot understand/flow speed or you will lose
    4. If you are a traditional debater, feel free to go at whatever speed you are comfortable with, this activity isn’t about how fast you go it’s about how good your arguments are
    I’ve dabbled in pretty much every form of LD debate, and as such have developed some ideological preferences towards certain arguments. The following should help you do prefs/prepare for a round in a hurry and will be explained in detail in the longer version of the paradigm.
    Performance/Narratives < SV FWs/ Winter and Leighton etc < Kritiks < Theory < Util/LARP/Generics < FW/Tricks
    I’m pretty easy on speaks and you should get at least 29.5 provided you do the following:
    1. Win (if you lose but do the rest, congrats on at least a 29)
    2. Be relatively clear (A little unclarity is fine if you fix it when I tell you to)
    3. Be nice/funny (Jokes are appreciated, but if you have no sense of humor, don’t force anything and just be a nice person)
    4. Give clear overviews (Conversational pace or a little faster, cover the flow, isolate important arguments and go for those things first)
    5. Collapse to a few voting issues as opposed to going for everything and making me resolve it
    6. Demonstrate a thorough understanding of either the topic, or the position you are reading
    Specifics (Long Version)
    Specific paradigmatic issues will be discussed here, so if you accidentally scrolled down and are short on time, scroll up.
    FW/Tricks
    I am comfortable judging these types of debates, but the burden of clarity and warrant explanation increases substantially. I do not want to spend 30 minutes after round sifting through a mangled truth table and attempt to compare it to some random obscure framework author that wasn’t explained. I actually really like framework debates, provided they are done correctly, and there is clash. I don’t like warrantless framework debates, so make sure to spend extra time explaining why I care about freedom or the constitution or whatever. I also think a lot of the random frameworks people read to try to be unique boil down to a question of preserving some a priori principle or using consequences to guide action, so take that how you will.
    Util/LARP/ Generics
    These are fine, just know that recency, impact, strength of link and other related portions of your arguments matter a whole lot more. I’ll call for cards more often in these debates, especially if there is some important part of an argument that is being harped on like a link or uniqueness evidence. Judging these debates is probably the easiest to resolve, and if you know your stuff speaks will be good.
    Theory
    Also fine, just keep the flow organized and do actual comparison of warrants and impacts with regards to specific theory standards and abuse claims. This not only makes you better as a debater, it also makes it easier for the judge to resolve, and absent weighing and comparison, the judge is forced to intervene, which means bad speaks. You can read pretty much any shell you want, and I won’t on face drop a shell just because its dumb, your opponent still has to respond to the shell, be it reasonability or a counter-interp. One thing on theory that I am pretty biased towards is a CX solves abuse argument; this to me seems intuitively true, so it is fairly easy to win this argument in front of me. This does not mean you auto-win because you read a CX checks CI, you still have to win it on the flow. Also theory interps that indict other theory interps function on a higher layer than the theory interps they are indicting, in the same way that theory functions on a higher layer than the abusive substantive argument.
    Kritiks
    These debates are ok, they just tend to get rather name-cally and irresolvable. When the AC is 6 minutes of the res is anti-black and the NC is 7 minutes of the AC is anti-women, it makes judging really hard, especially if there is no comparison between ROB’s and strength of link and impact. These debates should be performed in a manner that is similar to how one would read a util argument, except instead of a util framework, there is ROB for how I evaluate offense back to the link of the kritik. It is also important that if you read a dense kritikal position that you explain it very well, or at the very least, explain the ROB very well so that I can at least try to evaluate the debate. All the generic K’s like Wilderson, Fem, Natives, State, Cap, and Genealogy are things that I am familiar with and feel comfortable evaluating.
    SV/ Winter and Leighton
    These debates are boring, I’ll evaluate it just like I would a util argument except in whatever *new* way you contextualize Winter & Leighton to mean in this specific instance. These frameworks are really unwarranted and not strategically valuable, so I never really got why it became so popular. Giving me extra clarification on the weighing mechanism i.e. what counts as moral exclusion and how do we resolve it etc., is a smart thing to do
    Performance/ Narratives/Micropol
    I don’t like these positions very much. It seems innately unfair that the other person should lose because you brought up whatever social issue is occurring at that certain time. It also seems counter-productive to whatever solidarity movement you are arguing for that there should be no contestation of the assumptions made in your argument. If forced to judge these debates, I will look to the ROB first, and if you lose your ROB, and win your offense, you still lose.
    Random things
    Defaults:
    - Competing Interps, both sides get RVI’s
    - Conditionality is good
    - Consequentialism
    - Presumption flows neg, Permissibility flows aff
    These are all defaults and open to contestation by either debater
    Speaker Point Scale
    30- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zESyFTaDkVw
    29.5- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjUqUVrXclE
    29- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymSgls0Ce24
    28.5- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcmylxQ0ma4&index=4&list=RDYcym8i7hjcA
    28- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6iefP8lf3o
    27.5- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8vaJaFCFYA&t=769s
    27- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLpeX4RRo28&t=57s
    <26.5- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycym8i7hjcA

    (view changes)
    12:29 pm
  6. page Garrett, Brandon edited I debated 4 years of policy in High school for Bellarmine and 1 in college for UT Dallas. I coach P…
    I debated 4 years of policy in High school for Bellarmine and 1 in college for UT Dallas. I coach PF, LD and Policy currently at Presentation High School.
    *UPDATE FOR BERKELEY 2017*
    ...
    VOTE ON STUPID POLICYMAKING GOOD
    ...
    I am also explicitly biased.
    ...
    expect. Im always honest about
    1) Am I more concerned with winning than understanding the arguments (if you answered yes you prolly wont win my ballot)
    2) Do I want to win and engage the substance (If you answered yes then you can proceed)
    3) Do I have anything to actually refute the probably true argument that people of color and women and other disadvantaged people are set up to fail and the institutions of the state and debate have failed them? (If the answer is no you can still win this debate: stop the round, engage in a discussion with your opponent, get more woke, contribute to the discourse, and tell me why you think that should enable you to win my ballot. That or cut more cards and prep better answers)
    Honestly some of the norms in the community where the option to read some shitty theory spike in order to avoid a real discussion of gender or race issues are so morally repugnant it disgusts me. Your coaches and you should be ashamed if your strat against these types of args is framework/T. #NotmyDebate
    ****End Rant*
    I am fine with any level of speed or argumentation, and tend to favor critical arguments. My team in Dallas was a very straight-up oriented team and as a result I am familiar with and accepting of those types of arguments as well. As with anything, if you cannot clearly articulate your argument or position, I will not vote for it.
    I try to do as little work for you as possible, and tend to favor the team that does more analysis and explanation of warrants. If you are extending your tag and cite but not explaining the warrants of your evidence your opponents will probably win.
    (view changes)
    8:36 am

More