Recent Changes

Today

  1. page Boote, Hayley edited ... abuse arguments. Do not go over time, I stop flowing and stop listening. PFD: I will wei…

    ...
    abuse arguments. Do not go over time, I stop flowing and stop listening.
    PFD: I will weigh the evidence, but I am voting on your ability to make arguments. Please do not be rude.
    Policy: I am policy-oriented but I will pick up a K team if their reasoning is valid and it pertains to the resolved. Talk as fast as you want but if I didn't hear it then its not on my flow. Justify every claim you make with evidence and, please, explain to me with evidence analysis why you won. I do not use prep time for flashing but I will start if it becomes annoyingly time-consuming.
    (view changes)
    2:24 pm
  2. page Windsor, William edited ... Directly address the opposing team's arguments. Show why your arguments are superior to your o…
    ...
    Directly address the opposing team's arguments. Show why your arguments are superior to your opponents' arguments.
    Other debate strategies and methodologies are fine: frameworks, counterplans, topicality, etc. Make sure that these arguments are important and impactful to the resolution, with strong analytical reasoning, and with evidential support where applicable.
    ...
    a "case K": IK". My view is that the
    ...
    provides a focused forum for
    ...
    debate the resolution, not to provide a soapbox for students to just yell about stuff :-) .resolution in each round.
    (view changes)
    6:39 am

Yesterday

  1. page Broberg, Garrett edited ... Broberg - Four-year Congressional Debate Coach at Lincoln High school in Portland, Oregon…
    ...
    Broberg - Four-year
    Congressional Debate Coach at Lincoln High school in Portland, Oregon
    Four-year
    competitor at
    ...
    TOC Qualifier). I now in my first year as student congress coach at Lincoln High School (OR)..
    LD–
    Speed - I am the last judge that will tell you “no spreading” as long as your opponents are okay with speed, go for it
    (view changes)
    7:03 pm
  2. page Armitage, Dan edited UCLA '20 Conflicted w/ Katy Taylor *Note: if I have judged you before, you should go through my…
    UCLA '20
    Conflicted w/ Katy Taylor
    *Note: if I have judged you before, you should go through my paradigm again, since it has substantially changed since you last debated in front of me*
    UPDATE FOR USC:
    ...
    Yeah go for it. Just keep in mind I wasn't a much of a fw debater so please err on the side of overexplanation when explaining your framework justifications. I have some basic familiarity with the common stuff, but just because I have some background knowledge in philosophy doesn't mean I am familiar with YOUR particular framework, so please explain your arguments well. I do enjoy listening to a good, well explained fw debate. Unless you're reading one of the various recycled util justifications (Woller, Cummiskey, etc) you should probably read the framework more slowly than the offense.
    K's:
    ...
    read them much myself. Err
    ...
    Asian American critical lit since that's my major],lit], Cap, etc)
    ...
    for you. I now understand what Foucault is saying.
    Theory:
    I really dislike frivolous theory and it can confuse me especially when it gets messy. Please don't turn the round into a theory shit show, as I will be miserable; the more theory (regardless of if its in shell or paragraph form) read in a given round, the unhappier you'll probably be with my decision. I am NOT good at evaluating extremely fast theory (or most theory for that matter), so go slower (like literally half your normal speed) on theory than the rest of your arguments. I really like when debaters read just one or two standards and spend a lot of time going in depth and weighing those standards instead of reading a shitstorm of blips. I much prefer theory to be in an organized shell. I'm not afraid to say that I voted on presumption if you make the round too messy and neglect giving me a clear way to vote. I won't vote on theory based on an out-of-round violation that I can't verify. Do not read an outrageously stupid theory shell (like debaters must read an explicit counterinterpretation text, debaters must read contingent standards, etc) as I will auto-ignore. OCI's aren't a thing; read an RVI. I also LOATHE when people read theory against stock, whole res Affs or extremely predictable plan affs on a topic (ie the IPV aff on the handguns topic). Just engage with the damn AC. I'm okay with theory when there is clear abuse, and actually quite like when debaters initiating theory can demonstrate a clear, IN-ROUND abuse story (this is a roundabout way of saying I'm not a big fan of potential abuse arguments). Here are my defaults (if nothing is argued otherwise, which I really really think you should do):
    (view changes)
    12:50 pm
  3. page Woodruff, Nicole edited Experience: I have 4 years of experience in high school policy debate at CK McClatchy, and a semes…
    Experience: I have 4 years of experience in high school policy debate at CK McClatchy, and a semester of policy at Arizona State University. I currently coach policy debate at Chandler Preparatory High (since Spring 2014) and at BASIS Chandler (since Spring 2017).
    In general I try to remain as open as possible regarding what arguments I will evaluate, and am wiling to listen to any argument that you can defend is relevant to my decision. Make sure to tell me how I should be evaluating arguments, how to characterize arguments and how to weigh arguments. The more freedom I am given to make decisions in how to deal with those issues, the more likely I am to make decisions that hurt your position in the round.
    Please ask me if there is anything more specific that you would like to know than what is included in this paradigm.
    email: longdsyee@gmail.com
    phone: (916)704-4931

    (view changes)
    10:53 am
  4. page W edited ... Woodhouse, Scott Woodroof, Emily [[Woodruff, Woodruff, Nicole ]] Woodruff, Nicolessdfsd…
    ...
    Woodhouse, Scott
    Woodroof, Emily
    [[Woodruff,Woodruff, Nicole ]]
    Woodruff, Nicolessdfsdf

    Woods, Derek
    Woods, Jared
    (view changes)
    10:50 am
  5. page W edited ... Woodhouse, Scott Woodroof, Emily Woodruff, [[Woodruff, Nicole ]] Woodruff, Nicolessdfsd…
    ...
    Woodhouse, Scott
    Woodroof, Emily
    Woodruff,[[Woodruff, Nicole ]]
    Woodruff, Nicolessdfsdf

    Woods, Derek
    Woods, Jared
    (view changes)
    10:47 am
  6. page W edited (view changes)
    10:43 am
  7. page W edited ... Woodhouse, Scott Woodroof, Emily Woodruff, Connor Nicole Woods, Derek Woods, Jared
    ...
    Woodhouse, Scott
    Woodroof, Emily
    Woodruff, ConnorNicole
    Woods, Derek
    Woods, Jared
    (view changes)
    10:42 am

More