O'Hara,+Ana


 * Updated 12/18/14 ** . This is a little bit longer now. The general ideas are all the same.


 * BACKGROUND: ** I am the head coach at University of Chicago Lab. This is my fourth year of judging and my third year as a coach at UC Lab. I am currently a senior at the University of Chicago.


 * PARADIGM: ** Tech over truth. Argue what you enjoy, what you know, and what you can debate well. I tend to think of debate as a game that allows debaters to talk about what they're interested in, and love seeing a diversity of arguments in debate. If you run an argument that I do not frequently hear, and do it well, I will probably enjoy the debate a lot. Don't let this change what you run, though. I will vote for any argument. I enjoy both traditional and nontraditional debate. I will vote for any theoretical argument if you win it, although of course I would prefer judging a substantive debate to a theoretical one.

I don't like calling cards. If specific evidence is flagged in the debate as really good/bad I might call it. If evidence is important to the decision (such as definition evidence) I'll call it. If a card was only tagline extended I won't call it. I am most inclined to call for evidence in a debate that was close because it was well-argued by both sides. I never want your whole speech doc - I'm not going to get upset or anything if you ask me if I want to be on your email chain, but the answer will always be no.

I think almost all debates need more impact calc. If both teams haven't told me what their impacts are and why I should care, it makes my job a lot harder. Just because you're running a K/T/theory/framework/etc. doesn't mean you don't need to weigh your impacts.

Zero probability of an impact is a thing. I can be persuaded to vote on presumption. Like any other argument, explain and impact it if you want to win it.

I don't like how framework gets run a lot of the time. I still vote for it if the team running framework wins, but I personally think that there should be far more focus put on education and far less on fairness in framework debates. If you are going for a fairness impact, it should be impacted beyond "makes debate harder for us." I think that the best impacts to framework are stasis point key to good conversation and thus good education, and learning about policy makes us better advocates for change IRL. I think that winning why a topical version of the aff and/or running the aff on the neg solve, it will help you out a lot.

For the aff in a framework debate, talk about your case more. Use your 1AC to create disads to the framework. Don't let your 2AR become all about their arguments. If I can't remember what the 1AC was talking about by the 2AR, you're going to have a much lower chance of winning.

I keep hearing this argument on framework, that "the role of the ballot should be to vote for the team who did the better debating." This argument confuses me. In my view, presenting a compelling framing for me to evaluate the round is part of doing the better debating. I think that maybe what these debaters mean is that I should evaluate the game as the referee of a game rather than a critical intellectual/activist/ethical educator/etc. If that's what you mean A) please say that, and B) please explain why that should be the framing. "Anything else is arbitrary" =/= explaining why that should be the framing.

On theory, I err towards "reject the argument not the team" for theory other than conditionality. If you want me to reject the team, tell me so and tell me why.

I don't take prep for flashing. If I'm on a panel I'll default to what the other judges want because I really don't care.

Please do your best not to hide behind your laptop. I understand the struggles of being short, and how that makes it hard to have your stand low enough to see over your screen. But just angle the computer or something. I can't hear you with a laptop in your face.

If I come into the room and the debaters have claimed all of the nice comfy chairs, leaving me to sit at a student desk, I will be disappointed in you all.

Feel free to ask me if you have any other questions.


 * SPEAKER POINTS: **

I thought I should clarify my speaker point scale because people keep complaining. Note that I adjust points depending on the field, so a 28 at a local CDL tournament does not mean the same as a 28 at a major TOC bid tournament.

29.8-30 - I have never given speaker points this high. If you get points in this range, you gave the best debate speeches that I have ever seen.

29.4-29.7 - Your speeches were among the best that I have ever seen. If you spoke this well every round, you would be one of the top speakers at the tournament and would probably receive a speaker award at the TOC. There were very few things that you could have improved. Your speeches were intelligent and extremely articulate, your cross-x's were strong but not mean.

29.0-29.3 - You gave speeches among the top 30-40 that I have ever seen. If you spoke this well every round, I would expect you to be among the top 10-20 speakers at this tournament. There were some minor things that you could have improved. You spoke extremely clearly and made smart arguments. All of your arguments were warranted and clashed. You had strong cross-x's, but might have been a little too aggressive.

28.6-28.9 - I was impressed by your speaking. If you spoke this well every round, you would have a decent chance of receiving a speaker award. There were several major things or many minor things that could have been improved. I could understand almost all or all of what you said, almost all or all of your arguments were warranted, and you had substantial clash. Your cross-x's were good, but you may have struggled with questions/answers that I don't think you should have or you may have been a bit mean to your partner and/or opponents.

28.0-28.5 - You spoke well. If you spoke this well every round, you would probably not receive a speaker award, but would be in the top 25% or so of speakers at the tournament. There were several major things that could have been improved. I may have had problems understanding you a few times, but there were no major clarity issues. Most of your arguments were warranted, and you made an effort to clash. Your cross-x's were probably not very strong, or you may have been too mean, but you made no major mistakes in cross-x.

27.6-27.9 - You did not speak poorly. If you spoke this well every round, you would definitely not receive a speaker award, but would most likely be in the top 50% of speakers at the tournament. There were many major things that could have been improved. I may have had problems understanding parts of your speeches somewhat regularly. You made attempts to warrant your arguments, but may have had little to no clash. Your cross-x's were probably weak or very mean.

27.0-27.5 - You spoke somewhat poorly. If you spoke this well every round, you certainly would not be in the top 25% of speakers at the tournament, and probably would not be in the top 50%. There were many major things that could have been improved. There may have been consistent clarity issues, but I could understand at least a substantial portion of your speeches. You made very few attempts to warrant your arguments or clash. Your cross-x's were probably very weak or mean.

26-26.9 - You spoke very poorly. If you spoke this well every round, you would be in the bottom 25% of speakers at the tournament. There were very many major things that need to be improved, and they were often fundamental to your speeches. I may have had difficulty understanding most or all of your speeches. You made almost no or no attempts to warrant your arguments or clash. Your cross-x's were extremely weak or absurdly mean.

25-25.9 - You spoke extremely poorly. I would guess that you are a novice competing in varsity. If you spoke this well every round, you would definitely be in the bottom 10% of speakers at the tournament. Everything about your speech needs to be improved in major ways. I may have been unable to understand any of your speeches. You made no attempts to warrant your arguments or clash, and had extremely weak cross-x's. Alternately, you may have given a 26-29.9 level speech but been excessively rude and mean to your partner and/or opponents throughout the round.

Below a 25 - You made racist/sexist/homophobic remarks or arguments or were consistently extremely disrespectful to your partner and/or opponents. I will probably talk to your coach about your behavior.