Recent Changes

Yesterday

  1. page Fife, Travis edited I attend UCLA. I coach for Hard and Fast Rules: Flashing counts as prep if you are assembling t…
    I attend UCLA. I coach for
    Hard and Fast Rules:
    Flashing counts as prep if you are assembling the document. If everything is in one doc and you are just saving then that is not prep.
    (view changes)
    3:17 pm
  2. page Fife, Travis edited ... Evasiveness of any kind before round is highly frowned upon. My expectation is that debaters a…
    ...
    Evasiveness of any kind before round is highly frowned upon. My expectation is that debaters are honest with one another in all their dealings.
    2017-18 Updates:
    ...
    less happy.
    I think there are some useful things I've noticed about myself going into this tournament:
    1.I keep a good flow. I will hold you to what you say. I do not mind justifying my decisions after the debate.
    2. I will read your evidence and compare it to your explanation in round. Putting powerful spin on your ev is good and highly encouraged. Falsely representing what your evidence says is not. Similarly, having good ev but explaining it poorly will also hurt you.
    3. If you clip your evidence, I will know and I will stop the debate and give you a Loss w/ minimum speaks.
    ...
    the bed.
    5. On K's, you would be best served as framing your links in terms of the perm. When i have voted AFF on K debates it almost always comes down to: 1) does the perm shield the link and 2) do the links pose a tradeoff between doing the aff and the success of the alt?
    6. I do not think I can objectively evaluate Role of the ballot/standard text spec theory arguments. I certainly will do my best, but i just think this argument is thoroughly ridiculous. I definitely do not think it's the worst argument debaters run, but it's without a doubt my least favorite.
    ...
    academic/theoretical/philosophical/critical perspective.
    8.

    8.
    i have
    ...
    either way.
    9.

    9.
    I like
    ...
    as prep.
    10. I don't think i've voted in an RVI in like over 2 years. I would consider myself a hard press.
    (view changes)
    3:17 pm
  3. page Fife, Travis edited ... You must either flash or email your opponent your docs. Evasiveness of any kind before round …
    ...
    You must either flash or email your opponent your docs.
    Evasiveness of any kind before round is highly frowned upon. My expectation is that debaters are honest with one another in all their dealings.
    Toc 172017-18 Updates:
    This year i've

    In general, I really enjoy judging debate. If you have a well
    thought out and interesting take on the topic/debate, I will be happy. If you use strategies that reflect a lot about howshallow understanding of the arguments you're running that avoid clash i judge debates. Iwill be less happy.
    I
    think there
    ...
    the debate.
    2.

    2.
    I will
    ...
    hurt you.
    3.

    3.
    If you
    ...
    minimum speaks.
    4.

    4.
    I like
    ...
    the bed. (refer to general notes below)
    5. On
    ...
    the alt?
    6. I do not think I can objectively evaluate Role of the ballot/standard text spec theory arguments. I certainly will do my best, but i just think this argument is thoroughly ridiculous. I definitely do not think it's the worst argument debaters run, but it's without a doubt my least favorite.
    Favorites:
    - Specific Plan
    - Reading T with evidence
    - Good evidence
    - Nuanced framework debate and interesting philosophical perspectives
    Random thoughts:
    I like framework debate.
    7. I like philosophy. I really like ethical philosophy I do not like the ways that these things manifest themselves in LD by people trying to avoid clash and 'framework debaters' tending to run bad theory arguments or have four shells at the bottom of their AFF that say the neg can't read anything. I will definitely vote on weird/unconventional/counter-intuitive ethical and theoretical arguments. I enjoy them. But I don't like arguments that avoid clash where the purpose is to not let your opponent respond.
    I judge a lot of debates that I would describe as a 'clash of civilizations,' in the sense that both debaters seem to have presuppositions about how debate rounds should work and assume that I share those assumptions. I truly do not have a preference what type of arguments you run. I also have very few presumptions about the 'right' way to debate. This means throwing your hands up and saying, 'come on travis, I know you don't like dense philosophy, extinction comes first' or 'come on, man, policy making is obviously silly' is not an effective strategy. I am a fan of interesting arguments, with the word 'interesting' being used very loosely. I do not want to be dogmatic. In short: be willing to defend what you do without appealing to my intuitions or dismissing your opponent as out of hand.
    I
    research the topicstopic a lot. I like debaters who demonstrate a knowledge ofdebates about the topic. Take that for what you will.
    Short version:
    I could be a fan of any argument you want to read, provided it 1) is explained
    topic grounded in a way I can understand and 2) has an explicit reason why that means you should win. I like when debaters appreciate the space they've been given and use it to do what they like. This means engage in the resolution and your speaking time however you want whether that means dense ethical philosophy, debate theory, or critical debate. Just do what you find meaningful even if that just means doing what gives you the best chance to win. My biggest preference in terms of what you run is that you make good arguments, which you understand and execute well.
    Long story short, I will do my best to evaluate the round in whatever way you guys present. Seriously just
    robust academic/theoretical/philosophical/critical perspective.
    8. i
    have fun, kick ass, and make arguments you think are worth making in a debate round, whether that means what will win or just something you think is interesting.
    On
    voted almost 50/50 on must defend the Role of the Ballot/judge as educator/Non-topical AFF'stopic vs Topicality/F/W:
    I tend to agree that debate offers people a unique platform to be creative and say things they feel are important. This means
    non-T affs. I am more open than others to alternative modes of engaging the resolution, theory, and other normally assumed aspects of debate.
    On the issue of fairness over the K, I really do not have an inclination
    don't think i lean either way. The preference
    9.
    I do have, though, is that debaters don't hide behind words and phrases like "education first" or "debate is a game, therefore fairness first." These arguments reduce incredibly complicated ideas to vague, undefined intuitions about whatCX. You can't use it means to be an educator. So, like I say throughout this paradigm, I do not care if you run theory on a K or alternatively try to use the "role of the ballot" arguments to show why theory is oppressive or should be rejected. What I do care about is that you are specific in what you mean by these arguments and what your vision of debate looks like. Otherwise, you're doing a disservice to yourself and I"m forced to rely on my own opinions of what you're talking about rather than the arguments you're actually reading. In short, be specific and make good arguments.
    I have voted pretty much equally on T vs K aff's and K's of T. Again, the starting point for my decision will be whether or not there is a topical version of the AFF and whether or not that topical version resolves their K-offense.
    Theory:
    I take RVI's to mean the following: If you win a counter interp via counter standards or turns to their standards then you should win the round. This means you must further justify why i meets and defensive args should be included under what you're justifying
    as an "RVI"prep.
    10.
    I don't have a higher threshold for these latter arguments, they just aren't includedthink i've voted in my definition of an RVI and so I don't assume justifying an RVI means I should vote for you on them.
    If your theory voter doesn't justify (in some capacity) whether I drop the debater or argument or some other implication you want me to do I will ignore the theory shell because it is worse intervention to just assume one way or another and impose my opinions about theory on the round. This goes for spikes you extend to take out opponents arguments - if you don't explain the impact I don't know what to do with it (i.e. if I vote them down, reject the whole NC, reject one card, etc.).
    I do not care if you use theory as a strategic tool or to actually check abuse -
    in like I said debate is your game.
    Prefer AFF interps: if you choose to run this argument please tell me what it means and how it factors into how i weigh the interp debate.
    over 2 years. I would prefer you make substantive responses to framework issues anyway but whatever. I tend to agree that the AFF has some sort of skew and that the more interesting discussion is what sort of leeway that grants the aff. Generic weighing of err aff/err neg won't get you very far without more specific analysis of what that means.
    Please read interpretations very slowly - i can flow speed, but I'm not
    consider myself a fucking machine and 9/10 times when people spread through the interp at full speed I miss some of it. This makes it increasingly hard to evaluate theory when I don't even have the interp down.
    Random theory issues:
    - I do not think that winning aff abuse comes first, metatheory comes first, or some variation of these arguments makes the entirety of the other shells in a round irrelevant. You gotta do better than that.
    -I don't think RVI arguments are normally very persuasive or interesting.
    - I think the neg should be able to question your role of the ballot. I think the Neg should be able to run a kritik. If you win that this is not the case, that's fine. I will reject the K. But it's definitely an uphill battle.
    Policy: I think these can be some of the best debates around. I would love you if you did good evidence comparison and comparison of links to the impact rather than doing superficial weighing of impacts. I've read DA's, CP's, and Plans, granted rarely, so I know most of the lingo and the function. If you read a plan please read specific evidence instead of general util for the topic. Also I'm not a fan of plans bad theory arguments. I think you should either read a T shell or a more nuanced reason why their type of plan text is bad.
    Kritiks: This is my favorite argument. What is means for you is that you had better know what you're talking about. Don't just run a kritik cause I like them. I would prefer you have an alternative other than rejection; actually advocate something. I would prefer smart analytics and intuitive responses to the K over theory or framework but am sympathetic to the strategy.
    With that being said, I truly hate some of the tendencies in K debate. Do not hide behind jargon. Do not overstate your impacts. Be specific, be smart, and know what you're talking about. Also, if you don't make specific links to the aff in the NC, I'm more likely to give the aff credence on no link arguments.
    Speaks: Debate is really hard and I try to give speaks that are sympathetic to that. I'd say average is a 28 and speaks are based off the tournament you're at. Speaker points reflect how well you choose and execute the strategies available to you, not necessarily how much I like the substance of your arguments.
    press.
    (view changes)
    3:17 pm
  4. page Morrison, Jacob edited ... Disadvantages: I like hearing them. I personally love politics DAs. I'm a bit of a tix debater…
    ...
    Disadvantages: I like hearing them. I personally love politics DAs. I'm a bit of a tix debater myself so l try to not be partial but they're personally my favorite. I also enjoy hearing solid link chains with specific evidence. If you don't explain your internal link well don't expect me to buy that extinction outweighs everything else just based on magnitude.
    Topicality/Theory: I'll usually only vote on proven abuse and not potential abuse unless there's some highly unusual scenario. I just don't like hearing some generic T substantial or condo bad as a time suck. Only go for T/theory if there is real proven abuse please. Going for them in 2NR maximizes judge discretion and that usually leaves someone in the room very unhappy. I default to competing interps.
    ...
    still consider them butthem--but things like
    Performance/K Affs: Don't even think about it. Please.
    Speaking: My usual speaker point range: 27-29. However, I don't really have a bright line or rubric for how I give out speaks and believe speaks usually are on a contextual basis. I'm okay with any speed as long as you're clear. Just please be nice to each other!
    (view changes)
    2:50 pm
  5. page Jiao, Jennifer edited Hi! I'm Jennifer. I debated in high school at UC Lab and am now a first year at the University of …
    Hi! I'm Jennifer. I debated in high school at UC Lab and am now a first year at the University of Chicago. As someone who does not debate in college and is not coaching any high school teams, I know little about this years topic.
    Some things that might be helpful to know ~
    1. I read mainly critical race/gender arguments in high school and that is also probably the literature I know best.
    2. This doesn't mean that I hate DAs or CPs but probably does mean you have to do more explanation on the way they interact with each other during the debate.
    3. When evaluating debates, I lean towards the side of tech then ethos. I don't like having to intervene, which probably means you want to spend time explaining how to frame the debate or impacting out arguments.

    (view changes)
    2:49 pm
  6. page Morrison, Jacob edited ... Main affiliation: Durant Other schools I have judged for: Marietta, Pottsboro (TX) Overview…
    ...
    Main affiliation: Durant
    Other schools I have judged for: Marietta, Pottsboro (TX)
    Overview:Thesis: I won't
    General & Notes on lay/traditional forms of debate: I like hearing good framework debates and like hearing solid impact calculus, that applies for basically all events too I guess. Just explain where you want me to vote so I can evaluate it likewise. I won't do work for you and I won't intervene.
    Disadvantages: I like hearing them. I personally love politics DAs. I'm a bit of a tix debater myself so l try to not be partial but they're personally my favorite. I also enjoy hearing solid link chains with specific evidence. If you don't explain your internal link well don't expect me to buy that extinction outweighs everything else just based on magnitude.
    (view changes)
    2:47 pm
  7. page Morrison, Jacob edited ... Other schools I have judged for: Marietta, Pottsboro (TX) Overview: I won't call myself compl…
    ...
    Other schools I have judged for: Marietta, Pottsboro (TX)
    Overview: I won't call myself completely tab, or completely anything--much of how I judge is on a case-by-case basis.
    NotesGeneral & Notes on lay/traditional
    Disadvantages: I like hearing them. I personally love politics DAs. I'm a bit of a tix debater myself so l try to not be partial but they're personally my favorite. I also enjoy hearing solid link chains with specific evidence. If you don't explain your internal link well don't expect me to buy that extinction outweighs everything else just based on magnitude.
    Topicality/Theory: I'll usually only vote on proven abuse and not potential abuse unless there's some highly unusual scenario. I just don't like hearing some generic T substantial or condo bad as a time suck. Only go for T/theory if there is real proven abuse please. Going for them in 2NR maximizes judge discretion and that usually leaves someone in the room very unhappy. I default to competing interps.
    (view changes)
    2:46 pm
  8. page Morrison, Jacob edited ... Other schools I have judged for: Marietta, Pottsboro (TX) Overview: I won't call myself compl…
    ...
    Other schools I have judged for: Marietta, Pottsboro (TX)
    Overview: I won't call myself completely tab, or completely anything--much of how I judge is on a case-by-case basis.
    ...
    won't intervene.
    Disadvantages: I like hearing them. I personally love politics DAs. I'm a bit of a tix debater myself so l try to not be partial but they're personally my favorite. I also enjoy hearing solid link chains with specific evidence. If you don't explain your internal link well don't expect me to buy that extinction outweighs everything else just based on magnitude.
    ...
    competing interps.
    Kritiks: I'm not a huge K debater but I still enjoy hearing good solid K's with specific links and evidence. I'll still consider them but things like generic cap and security do not excite me. If your K is philosophy heavy, please explain the philosophy well. (Personal favorites: Derrida and Deleuze)
    Performance/K Affs: Don't even think about it. Please.
    ...
    range: 27-29. However, I don't really have a bright line or rubric for how I give out speaks and believe speaks usually are on a contextual basis. I'm okay
    (view changes)
    2:45 pm
  9. page Morrison, Jacob edited Last updated: February 16th, 2017 10/21/17 Background: I ... in LD (mostly lay, but some circ…
    Last updated: February 16th, 201710/21/17
    Background: I
    ...
    in LD (mostly lay, but some circuit) and PF. I was a state quarterfinalist in LD in 2016. I currently debate NFA-LD,NFA-LD and NPDA parli, and IPDAparli at Southeastern
    ...
    State University. I consider myself *mostly* a flow judge that is tab to an extent minus a few preferences. I will vote for who I believe did the better debating, as most ballots suggest.
    Main affiliation: Durant
    Other schools I have judged for: Marietta, Pottsboro (TX)
    My paradigms:
    Local LD:
    Overview: I like philosophy, but I'm not a freak about it like a lotwon't call myself completely tab, or completely anything--much of Oklahoma judges are.how I expect everything you say to be backed up by evidence. Not everythingjudge is common knowledge. Your opinion does not matter. I will flow any argument. If you runon a policy case, I will listen to it although most judges in OSSAA would probably hate it. I don't care about the speed in which you talk, just be clear.case-by-case basis.
    Notes on lay/traditional forms of debate:
    I like to seehearing good framework clash. I can't stand seeing rounds with zero clashdebates and like hearing solid impact calculus, that are like two ships passing in the night.
    Circuit LD/Policy:
    applies for basically all events too I will rarely judge policy because Durant traditionally does not field CX debatersguess. Just explain where you want me to vote so this mostly pertains to circuit LD. With that being said, I am okay with basically everything. K's? Gocan evaluate it likewise. I won't do work for it. RVIs? Go for it. However, if you run theory or T, please run it on something genuinely abusive and don't run it just for the sake of running it. I'm personally not too big on condo either but I won't penalize you for it.intervene.
    Disadvantages:
    I just do not like to see someone running 3 CPs and kicking 2 ofhearing them. PLEASE doI personally love politics DAs. I'm a bit of a tix debater myself so l try to not run time sucks. Nor dobe partial but they're personally my favorite. I also enjoy seeing somebody running 10 off just to run 10 off. I like to see good debateshearing solid link chains with good evidence, logic, reasoning, and links. I also expect you to be reasonable.specific evidence. If somebody uses the wrong pronoun and you try todon't explain your internal link them, I'm not going to actually count it against them unless they're intentionally doing it to be rude. Accidents happen. I'm more likelywell don't expect me to buy that extinction outweighs everything else just based on magnitude.
    Topicality/Theory: I'll usually only
    vote on proven abuse and not potential abuse unless there's some highly unusual scenario. I just don't like hearing some generic T substantial or condo bad as a time suck. Only go for T/theory if there is real proven abuse rather than potential abuse. I won't say I won't vote on potential abuse, but I am less likely to.please. Going for them in 2NR maximizes judge discretion and that usually leaves someone in the room very unhappy. I default to competing interps on theory, typically. Please weighinterps.
    Kritiks: I'm not a huge K debater but I still enjoy hearing good solid K's with specific links and evidence. I'll still consider them but things like generic cap and security do not excite me. If
    your impacts! I love impact calculus.
    If you have have any questions
    K is philosophy heavy, please ask!
    General: Yelling, sounding uninterested or unsure, being rude, etc = decrease in speaks.
    explain the philosophy well. (Personal favorites: Derrida and Deleuze)
    Performance/K Affs: Don't even think about it. Please.
    Speaking: My usual speaker point range: 27-29.
    I'm chillokay with any
    ...
    you're clear. I will usually give 28-29 speaks unless you speak super great or really bad.Just please be nice to each other!
    (view changes)
    2:44 pm
  10. page J edited ... Ji, Amadeus Ji, Hua Jiao, Jennifer Jiang, Evelyn Jiang, Jason
    ...
    Ji, Amadeus
    Ji, Hua
    Jiao, Jennifer
    Jiang, Evelyn
    Jiang, Jason
    (view changes)
    2:40 pm

More