Recent Changes

Today

  1. page De La O, Dino edited ... Magnet in Dallas,Texas. Dallas, Texas and graduated in 2016. I qualified ... and a senio…
    ...
    Magnet in Dallas,Texas.Dallas, Texas and graduated in 2016. I qualified
    ...
    and a senior, and I accumulated 7 TOC bids my senior year. I qualified to TFA state 3 times and broke each year, ending in quarters my senior year. Finally, I qualified to NFL nationals in LD my sophomore year and in CX my senior year. This past summer II’ve taught at TDC, NSD Texas,TDC and NSD Flagship.NSD.
    Everything on
    ...
    is a paradigmatic presumption/preference. I
    ...
    this paradigm absent of any argumentation occurring in the debate on a necessary paradigmatic question. This meansbut you can
    ...
    any argument as long as the argument has a warrant. I will not evaluate a conceded card or analytic if it does not havehas a warrant. I will also not evaluate the argument if it is not properly extended. I don’t have a huge threshold for extensions but I’d like to hear part of the claimPlease extend and warrant and not just “extend advantage 1”. I wont evaluate an argument I couldn't flow. Finally, I won’t evaluate an argument that I cannot explain the warrant for in my RFD.
    Speed
    your arguments. Speed is fine.
    ...
    possibility of counterplansdisads, counterplans, or kritiks. As long asIf the counterplan or the alternativeposition is post fiat, competitive with the affirmative through post fiat links,resolution and better
    ...
    framework, then the counterplan or alternativeit proves the resolution false. For information on my views between truth testing and pre-fiat links/alternatives read the “Kritiks” section.
    Additionally, if the affirmative reads a plan or advocates for a specific action, I will presume that the burden for the round is to prove true/false the specific advocacy of the affirmative. This presumption can be challenged by making arguments against this type of ground (theory), or by arguing that their specific advocacy fails to be an example of the resolution (topicality).

    Theory: I will default to “competing interpretations” and “No RVIs”. I will not make any presumptions on the voter level of the debate. This includes the voter (fairness/education/etc.) and the implication (drop debater/argument). Failure to present arguments in favor of a voter and its implication is to present an unwarranted argument. Instead of doing the work for you I will not evaluate the argument, and I will default to truth testing. This also means you should be extending your voter and its implication properly and in every speech.
    Nuanced theory interpretations and voter interactions are very welcomed!
    Finally, after teaching at debate camp for 7 weeks I came to the conclusion thatSide note- flowing theory is incredibly hard.hard for me with all the blips and such. I can't
    ...
    important this is for debaters.is. I will
    Topicality: Everything from theory applies here.
    ...
    appeal to anotheran external standard. If
    ...
    own standard.
    To clarify, you can go for a textuality standard against a counter-definition if you have a semantic standard that determines the best textual interpretation and you link that standard to your definition.

    On a similar note, if you read “framework” (AFF must be topical) read a definition that excludes the AFF or generate the violation from CX. Having an interpretation that says “The AFF must be topical” does not prove a violation if you do not have either of the two options listed.
    ...
    structures are a little old school but very welcomed. Burden structures include arguments in favor of evaluating offense through the lens of a specific interpretation of the topic. A creative
    ...
    most familiar with framework debate and I tend to group K literature with framework debate. I don’t think framework canoften find the distinction to be reduced to only analytical philosophy.arbitrary. I think framework debate includes any argument that makes a claim on normativity ordebate over what I ought to do. This includes analytical/ideal philosophy, non-ideal/critical philosophy, “high theory”, theology, and much more.
    I also think framework has the ability to interact with pre-fiat arguments such
    counts as theory and the 2016 ROB Debate (This does not imply a negative connotation. I think the role of the ballotnormative. Wilderson can expand beyond how they are currently being used, so this is an easy way for me to refer to how people are using the role of the ballot today throughout my paradigm.) Framework makes an argument about what I ought to dobe as a subject, theory/ROB makes an argument about what I ought to do as a judge. The possibilitymuch of my obligations as a subject influencing my obligationsframework as a judge are endless.
    2016 ROB Debate: Absent of contestation in the round I will go along with the ROB that say something along the lines of “educators have obligations to resist oppression in the post/pre fiat debate”. To clarify, I strongly strongly strongly believe that resisting oppression is important. However, I do not think it is informative on my obligations to simply tell me I have to resist oppression. Fanon, Deleuze, Sexton, Foucault, Warren, Butler, Cone, Wilderson, Anzaldua, and literally almost everyone in critical literature have different conceptions of what liberation entails. These debates continue to happen in the literature as the struggle for meaning and truth continues. This is a framework debate!
    Hint: I think it is easy for debaters to win a critically philosophical framework against the 2016 ROB Debater. My personal opinion is that a critical framework leaves the 2016 ROB Debater with very few and not so strategic ground. However, the 2016 ROB Debater can still win the debate if they win their methodological stance on how they approached the framework debate.
    Kant.
    Kritiks: Your impacts have tomust link into
    ...
    into a critical frameworknormatively justified framework, or the 2016 ROB but they have tocould link into something that tells me how to evaluate offense.
    To clarify again,
    a pre-fiat role of the ballot. I find kritiks with a normatively justified framework more interesting because they dive into the philosophy of the position but you can do what you want.
    I
    default to
    ...
    you run pre fiatpre-fiat links or
    ...
    that makes relevant those types of considerations onrelevant to my obligations
    ...
    read a critical framework or a role of the 2016 ROBballot to establish
    ...
    of a problem.problem, but I can see a debater reading a Representations K in front of me without having a “reps first” card in the 1NC. Absent of
    ...
    fine. Running all of these debate
    ...
    non-util frameworks areis also fine.
    ...
    I have absolutely no problem
    Speaker Points: I evaluate speaker points purely based on strategy and whether or not you actually listened and slowed down when I yelled clear.
    ...
    will be completely arbitrary, but
    ...
    be as fairconsistent as I
    Miscellaneous:
    I don’t count flashing as prep time.
    ...
    prep to flash or you have to flash all documents separately to your opponent. flash.
    (view changes)
    7:12 am

Yesterday

  1. page Tripathy, Jayant edited Updated as of 11/2 AV Jayant Tripathy Lakeville North High School '11 University of Minnesota T…
    Updated as of 11/2 AV
    Jayant Tripathy
    Lakeville North High School '11
    University of Minnesota Twin Cities ‘14
    LD Coach Eagan High School August 2011 - 2013
    Background
    I debated for Lakeville North (MN) for four years, graduating in 2011. I debated extensively on both the national and local circuits. During my senior year I won the Minnesota State Championship and qualified to the TOC.
    Overview
    I view debate as an open-ended activity and believe that it is your [[#|job]] to dictate the way you utilize that activity, not mine. As such, I will not enforce any strict rules and I encourage you to do whatever you are best at. Basically, I am fine with whatever approach to the debate round you choose to employ and will do my absolute best to avoid bringing my biases into the decision. When I make a decision my goal is to intervene as minimally as possible. With that said, every judge has predispositions and I think it would be unfair to expect you to debate in front of me without knowing what those are. I am going to address some of the most frequently asked about topics, if you have any more specific questions, ask me before the round or [[#|email]] me at jtripathy@gmail.com. Remember what I said earlier though, I will not enforce rules on the debate, so if [[#|you win]] arguments to the contrary of any of my preferences I will gladly adapt them in the round. These preferences are simply what I will default to absent any discussion in the round, but if there is discussion then I will evaluate the arguments made, not my own viewpoints.
    Theory
    I default to viewing theory through competing interpretations because I feel reasonability requires me to intervene and determine what is or is not reasonable.
    There is a distinction between a defensive and offensive counterinterp. I will not vote for a defensive counterinterp unless it is presented with an RVI, but an offensive counterinterp is fair game even without a RVI because that should mean they are violating some rule of debate as opposed to simply saying you are violating no rules
    I will presume theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the debater unless told otherwise.
    Kritiks
    Are not self contained pieces of offense, read a framework.
    Preferably are presented with an alternative. You’re probably gonna be higher up on the speaker point scale if that alternative is something other than reject the debater.
    If they function discursively or are pre-fiat for some other reason, make that explicit, or I will evaluate them on the same level as framework.
    If your reading really dense stuff, I’d prefer if you slow down just a little bit. If you don’t I’ll probably still understand you but might get a [[#|headache]] and/or be grumpy.
    Counterplans
    Fine, make sure it has a clear text, is competitive, and net beneficial.
    Disadvantages
    If the terminal impact is nuke war, please read an internal link.
    Good uniqueness evidence will give you better speaks.
    Can’t read new links in the second speech, unless the link was somehow caused by their last rebuttal.
    Also don’t read new impacts in the 2N, because they only have the 2A to respond which is unfair.
    Weigh please, especially if there are multiple terminal impacts, make it clear which one comes first. If you don’t and get link turned on one of the terminal impacts, the debate becomes a mess and I’m probably going to be inclined to vote against you.
    Micropolitics
    It's fine. Make role of the ballot arguments, and explain things clearly.
    Speaker Points
    Will adjust scale according to the tournament. Speaks will be given based on what record bracket I think you should be in based exclusively on your performance in front of me.
    30-29.8 = 7-0
    29.7-29.4 = 6-1
    29.3-28.9 = 5-2
    28.8-28.4 = 4-3
    28.3- 27.9 = 3-4
    27.8- 27.4 = 2-5
    27.3 - 27 = 1-6, 0-7
    Like I said, any specific questions, email me at jtripathy@gmail.com.

    (view changes)
    7:57 pm
  2. page Schurevich, Aarron edited LAST UPDATED: 4/24/17 BIO I am the head coach of the Millard North debate team in Omaha, NE and…
    LAST UPDATED: 4/24/17
    BIO
    I am the head coach of the Millard North debate team in Omaha, NE and have been since 2012. For several years prior to joining Millard North, I was the Public Forum assistant coach for Fred Robertson at Millard West.
    (view changes)
    7:00 pm
  3. page Schurevich, Aarron edited ... UNIVERSAL NOTE BEFORE EVENT SPECIFIC NOTES I will not vote on any case arguments addressing s…
    ...
    UNIVERSAL NOTE BEFORE EVENT SPECIFIC NOTES
    I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull the trigger on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.
    ...
    is critical. (4/24/17)
    PUBLIC FORUM
    I judge PF more often than anything else, and it's the source of the majority of my training and experience.
    GENERAL NOTE
    I would be extremely excited and happy to see something unconventional (plan, kritik, etc.). If you want to go off the beaten path, I need you to be able to argumentatively justify your approach (Why is a plan good for PF? Why is your K important, especially in this event?) when you're inevitably pressed. The flip side of this is that I'll be at least receptive to theory arguments against these case strats if your opponents deem it necessary. For instance, if you run a specific plan, I'd listen to a theory argument about disclosure since disclosure has become a norm where plan debate exists otherwise.
    ...
    your speaks.
    FRAMEWORK AND/OR DEFINITION DEBATE
    If you intend to provide framework and/or definitions for the round, I still need to see warrants. Don't merely tell me how to view or evaluate the debate; explain why I ought to do so in your preferred manner. Also, if there are competing frameworks or definitions at play, I need to see work on weighing out why I ought to prefer one side's interpretation over the other's. If I don't have reasons/warrants on which to prefer, I'll make the choice for myself, and none of us in that round want me to have to do that given that judges doing work for themselves is the quickest way to get people all huffy about the decision. I won't intervene unless I'm left with no option but to do so in order to make a decision.
    ...
    26-25 - Below average in one or more ways (26-25 are probably on par with 29's in terms of my frequency of awarding them.)
    24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people (I don't give 24 or fewer points very often, perhaps a small handful of them in a season.)
    ...
    issues continue.
    STRIKE ADVICE
    If you do not intend to adapt and address both sides of the flow in the second rebuttal, you should strike me. Every team addresses both sides every weekend on my regional circuit, so I know it is a fair expectation AND that it can be done successfully. If you do not adapt to this expectation, you will be disappointed with the round's results, and I will not be kind with speaks.
    ...
    Tricks: 4 or Strike (In all likelihood, I'm not your judge. I'll listen to it if it's explained, but the tricks are so frequently blippy and unexplained that I have lots of trouble evaluating that style of debate.)
    If you have any specific questions, ask them pre-round.

    (view changes)
    6:59 pm
  4. page Schurevich, Aarron edited ... UNIVERSAL NOTE BEFORE EVENT SPECIFIC NOTES I will not vote on any case arguments addressing s…
    ...
    UNIVERSAL NOTE BEFORE EVENT SPECIFIC NOTES
    I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull the trigger on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.
    (SLIGHTLY MODIFIED: 3/25/2016)2017 UPDATE NOTE: I haven't judged a ton this year. I've been spending more and more tournaments in tabrooms and less and less time at those tournaments adjudicating debates. As such, my flow skills are not as sharp as they have been in the past. Even more than usual, I am not the judge for blippy, super intricate, card-dump debates. First and foremost, I don't like that style of debate, but more importantly, I'm not going to be good at evaluating it right now. If an argument matters, the debater needs to ensure I actually know it matters by spending time on explaining how it functions and why it is critical.
    PUBLIC FORUM
    I judge PF more often than anything else, and it's the source of the majority of my training and experience.
    GENERAL NOTE
    I would be extremely excited and happy to see something unconventional (plan, kritik, etc.). If you want to go off the beaten path, I need you to be able to argumentatively justify your approach (Why is a plan good for PF? Why is your K important, especially in this event?) when you're inevitably pressed. The flip side of this is that I'll be at least receptive to theory arguments against these case strats if your opponents deem it necessary. For instance, if you run a specific plan, I'd listen to a theory argument about disclosure since disclosure has become a norm where plan debate exists otherwise.
    I caution, however: by absolutely no means do I intend to indicate that I would like to see a case you're running that you're just running for the lulz. For the love of all that is holy, do not run a joke/meme case in front of me; you will be able to see the dissatisfaction in my immediate reaction and in the resultant mushroom cloud which will rise when I inevitably nuke your speaks.
    FRAMEWORK AND/OR DEFINITION DEBATE
    If you intend to provide framework and/or definitions for the round, I still need to see warrants. Don't merely tell me how to view or evaluate the debate; explain why I ought to do so in your preferred manner. Also, if there are competing frameworks or definitions at play, I need to see work on weighing out why I ought to prefer one side's interpretation over the other's. If I don't have reasons/warrants on which to prefer, I'll make the choice for myself, and none of us in that round want me to have to do that given that judges doing work for themselves is the quickest way to get people all huffy about the decision. I won't intervene unless I'm left with no option but to do so in order to make a decision.
    Also, more specifically on framework, if it matters and it's something that swings the debate one way or the other, you need to apply the framework to the argumentation in the debate.
    SPEED
    Don't. That's not the event's intention, and the speaker points I award will be used to discourage speaking practices I find to be problematic. Beyond all that, I suck at dealing with speed, so even if I wanted to get it all, I wouldn't.
    REBUTTALS
    I steadfastly believe it is the second team's duty and obligation to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as which ever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded. A team that ignores this bit of adaptation should expect to see speaker points that reflect a performance that I see as half-complete.
    SUMMARIES
    The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I don't need line-by-line work in this speech. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.
    FINAL FOCUS
    FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow.
    SPEAKER POINTS
    My scale is essentially as follows:
    30 - Absolutely perfection or otherwise deeply impressive (I have had multiple seasons where I gave no 30's.)
    29 - Near perfect speaking/execution/argumentation/strategy (I will probably award between one and three 29's over the course of a tournament.)
    28 - Good on pretty much all fronts (28/28.5's are my most frequently awarded points.)
    27 - Average (I give 27's frequently.)
    26-25 - Below average in one or more ways (26-25 are probably on par with 29's in terms of my frequency of awarding them.)
    24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people (I don't give 24 or fewer points very often, perhaps a small handful of them in a season.)
    I'm a-ok with post-round questions regarding the decision. If that turns into aggressive post-rounding, I will provide the debater/team with one spoken warning on demeanor before docking no fewer than 5 speaker points if the decorum issues continue.
    STRIKE ADVICE
    If you do not intend to adapt and address both sides of the flow in the second rebuttal, you should strike me. Every team addresses both sides every weekend on my regional circuit, so I know it is a fair expectation AND that it can be done successfully. If you do not adapt to this expectation, you will be disappointed with the round's results, and I will not be kind with speaks.

    LINCOLN DOUGLAS
    I used to judge LD fairly frequently, but in recent years, I have judged LD far more infrequently (perhaps an average of about 5 rounds a year for the past several years).
    ...
    26-25 - Below average in one or more ways (26-25 are probably on par with 29's in terms of my frequency of awarding them.)
    24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people (I don't give 24 or fewer points very often, perhaps a small handful of them in a season.)
    Additional notes on speaks:
    A debater who packs up his/her/their things:
    prior to
    I'm a-ok with post-round questions regarding the end ofdecision. If that turns into aggressive post-rounding, I will provide the debate will be dockeddebater/team with one spoken warning on demeanor before docking no fewer than 5 speaker points for being disrespectful to the opponent.
    prior to the RFD but after the debate will be docked 1 point for being disrespectful of
    if the judge.decorum issues continue.
    PREF ADVICE
    My advice on how to pref me:
    ...
    Tricks: 4 or Strike (In all likelihood, I'm not your judge. I'll listen to it if it's explained, but the tricks are so frequently blippy and unexplained that I have lots of trouble evaluating that style of debate.)
    If you have any specific questions, ask them pre-round.
    PUBLIC FORUM
    I judge PF very frequently, and it's the source of the majority of my training and experience.
    FRAMEWORK AND/OR DEFINITION DEBATE
    If you intend to provide framework and/or definitions for the round, I still need to see warrants. Don't merely tell me how to view or evaluate the debate; explain why I ought to do so in your preferred manner. Also, if there are competing frameworks or definitions at play, I need to see work on weighing out why I ought to prefer one side's interpretation over the other's. If I don't have reasons/warrants on which to prefer, I'll make the choice for myself, and none of us in that round want me to have to do that given that judges doing work for themselves is the quickest way to get people all huffy about the decision. I won't intervene unless I'm left with no option but to do so in order to make a decision.
    Also, more specifically on framework, if it matters and it's something that swings the debate one way or the other, you need to apply the framework to the argumentation in the debate.
    SPEED
    Don't. That's not the event's intention, and my speaker points awarded will be used to discourage problematic speaking practices.
    REBUTTALS
    I steadfastly believe it is the second team's duty and obligation to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as which ever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded. A team that ignores this bit of adaptation should expect to see speaker points that reflect a performance that I see as half-complete.
    SUMMARIES
    The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I don't need line-by-line work in this speech. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.
    FINAL FOCUS
    FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow.
    SPEAKER POINTS
    My scale is essentially as follows:
    30 - Absolutely perfection or otherwise deeply impressive (I have had multiple seasons where I gave no 30's.)
    29 - Near perfect speaking/execution/argumentation/strategy (I will probably award between one and three 29's over the course of a tournament.)
    28 - Good on pretty much all fronts (28/28.5's are my most frequently awarded points.)
    27 - Average (I give 27's frequently.)
    26-25 - Below average in one or more ways (26-25 are probably on par with 29's in terms of my frequency of awarding them.)
    24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people (I don't give 24 or fewer points very often, perhaps a small handful of them in a season.)
    Additional notes on speaks:
    A debater who packs up his/her/their things:
    prior to the end of the debate will be docked 2 points for being disrespectful to the opponent.
    prior to the RFD but after the debate will be docked 1 point for being disrespectful of the judge.
    If you have any questions about issues that are not addressed here, ask them pre-round.
    POLICY
    I have nearly zero experience in judging Policy debate, so take that into consideration if (for some extraordinary reason) I'm in the CX pool.
    SPEED
    To be frank, I'm not good with flowing speed, though I have gotten much better since about 2013. I don't want a debater to speak to me like I'm a troglodyte, but I still struggle to some extent when tasked with keeping up with a quick speaker on the flow. I prefer a much more relaxed delivery over hyper-active speed, but I will do everything I can to follow along and keep up. I will clear you if I'm not able to follow along, but if a debater doesn't adapt to my ability level, I'm not heartbroken over missing an argument or two on the flow. I'm an open book as far as non-verbal feedback goes, so you ought to know what I'm thinking and how I feel in any given moment.
    EVERYTHING ELSE
    Please take the fact that I'm lumping everything else in CX into an "everything else" category as a message about my qualifications within the event. I'll do my absolute best to evaluate the debate you bring to me without placing limits and expectations upon the round. If that means I'm judging a straight up policy-maker round, cool. If it means I'm judging an esoteric or performance round, cool. I don't care what your style is. I'm not there to limit you; I'm there to adjudicate the debate before me. I'd be as likely to vote for a topical plan text as I would be to vote for a K. Whoever wins the debate will get my ballot. However, I will not be too good with the jargon or technical aspects of the debate, so please be careful to provide me with the depth of analysis required to introduce someone to what you're discussing.
    I am an open book otherwise and will be much more likely to give you good information when provided with a specific question before the round, so feel free to ask about my preferences and expectations in the debate before it begins.

    (view changes)
    6:59 pm
  5. page Kumar,Paras edited A lot of people butcher my name. It's pronounced Paras Kumar (pronounced PA-ruhs KUU-marr KUU-…
    A lot of people butcher my name. It's pronouncedParas Kumar (pronounced PA-ruhs KUU-marrKUU-marr)
    UC Berkeley, Incoming PhD Candidate

    http://www.debatedrills.com/meet-the-team/
    Last Updated: December 17, 2016April 24, 2017
    Conflicts: PCDS
    ...
    Mountain View DZ
    2016-2017
    DZ, LHP MK + AA
    TOC 2017
    UPDATE:
    I'm
    ...
    jargon and strategies.strategies on this topic. I have
    ...
    LD debates 56 years ago.
    ...
    comfortable evaluating most strategiesevery common strategy in debate, includingsuch as k's, t
    ...
    game and no longerdon't want to
    ...
    who are truly flex but
    ...
    affs and another debater whose neg strategy has been built around the Wilderson K. I have also voted for
    ...
    these debates. TwoSome caveats:
    A)
    ...
    "high theory" literature,literature), you probably
    ...
    your obtuse evidenceDeluze card said.
    B) I'd prefer to see the aff be at least tangentially related to the topic. You don't have to roleplay as a policymaker and you can read offense in the form of a poem/story/irony/whatever really, but if your aff is blatantly non-T, I may not be the best judge for you. I am persuaded by the value of switch side debate.
    C) I lean towards empirical analysis of abstract concepts like ontology. As a scientist, I am inherently skeptical of claims that are non-falsifiable. This applies to some K alts--the more vague your alt is and the more it relies on unprovable historical and/or empirical assumptions, the less likely I am to be persuaded by it if the solvency of the alternative is pressed by the aff. I strongly believe the strongestIf you can't clearly explain your argument to a 5 year old, it's probably
    2) Theory: This is one of my areas of expertise. Read and do whatever you want. I've spent much more time thinking about and teaching this debate than your average tech LD judge. You are unlikely to confuse me on this layer of the flow. Please slow down for the text of your interpretations. I default drop debater, RVIs, competing interps using a metric of in round abuse (not norm setting), fairness >> education, pragmatics >> semantics, text of interp >> spirit and theory about K >> K. These are purely defaults--most debaters challenge them one way or another, so this rarely matters. I am most persuaded by real abuse, not potential abuse. I also think not enough debaters leverage drop the argument and reasonability vs. stupid shells.
    Re: Frivolous theory--I think debate is a chess match, and I understand that this is a tool that is often very strategic to layer your opponent/expose weaknesses. If you read friv theory and do it well, you will pick my ballot but won't get high speaks (28.5 max). Wondering if your shell is frivolous? If you have to ask, it probably is. If you are a debater who struggles at answering frivolous theory / hates the fact that judges vote on it, all I can say is get better at beating these arguments. They are called frivolous for a reason. I think most debaters over invest vs. friv theory--30 seconds of good, smart arguments should probably be sufficient to beat the shell.
    Re: Weighing--I prefer to see weighing on the standards and voters done early. The general rule of thumb is that if you have an opportunity to weigh your standards/voters vs. your opponent's standards/voters in the 1N or 1AR, sandbagging until the 2N or 2AR is not encouraged. Obviously you can't weigh arguments until there is actual clash on this layer of the flow, but as soon as clash is introduced, weighing should happen. So if you are the 1AR responding to a T shell and you read net benefits to a counterinterp, you need to weigh those net benefits in the 1AR. You can obviously go for strength of link weighing and respond to 2NR weighing, but introducing brand new weighing in the 2AR that the negative never had a chance to respond too is not a winning strategy in front of me. This is the only way to check for a lack of 3NR--otherwise a lot of really tech theory debates can't be resolved in a non-arbitrary way and lead to me doing a lot of work for the negative.
    ...
    is verifiable.
    3) Util:
    I love good util debatestend to think you should disclose and encourage argumentative openness.
    3) Util: This is my other area of expertise. I
    feel comfortable evaluating basically all the
    A) I believe terminal defense on util exists. If your opponent is showing that your extinction scenario has no brink, has significant alternate causality, and significant alternate solvency, you probably aren’t going to access a probability claim on that scenario. I feel comfortable rounding down .1% probabilities of things happening to 0—this is consistent with real life and academia.
    B) Empirical claims need empirical warrants, which means you should probably know the sample size, geographical scope, time frame, variables controlled for, and source of your methodologies. Otherwise most weighing on the util debate, especially on the direction of the link, becomes superficial and surface level. I find methodological indicts of empirical studies to be persuasive and impressive and your speaks will reflect that if you execute this debate well.
    C) I'd strongly prefer you weigh your impacts and internal links early and often, i.e. in the 1N and 1AR. The general rule of thumb is that if you have the opportunity to weigh your impacts/internal links vs. your opponent's impacts/internal links in the 1N or 1AR, sandbagging the weighing the 2N or 2AR for strategy or time purposes is not encouraged. This means disads read in the 1N should be weighed vs the 1AC advantages in the 1N itself.
    ...
    as they could be.can. I am totally open to listening to warming good, dedev, heg bad, cap good, etc. and I think a lot of people's files are not updated on these impact turns and it's a devastatingly quick way to layer a debate. Leveraging horizontal
    ...
    LD frameworks like deont,(e.g. Deont, Rawls, political philosophy, etc.Political philosophy) I will
    ...
    of the time, buttime. That being said, if you
    ...
    SPEECH ITSELF.
    The

    The
    biggest advice
    ...
    v Internalism? Whether the framework is motivating? Lol, I
    I also don't default to epistemic modesty because I don't understand how to assign risk of your framework being true in a non-arbitrary fashion, but am happy to use EM to evaluate the framework debate if it is won.
    5) Tricks: I will reluctantly vote off of tricks if they are clearly won (e.g. skep/skep triggers, permissibility triggers, presumption, wanky logic based affs etc.). That being said, these debates are usually a race to the bottom in terms of avoiding well-developed substantive clash and are typically pedagogically vacuous because they focus the debate on to what I think are mostly trivial issues. But if this is your style of debate, go for it I guess. Several things to note re: speaker points though--
    ...
    The rest of my paradigm are some misc. big picture thoughts--
    1) The way I judge will reflect how I give RFD’s: I will first figure what is the highest layer of the debate, and then decide on a framework to judge that layer, and then figure out who has the most offense back to that framework. If there is no winner produced on the first layer, I will look at the second layer, and so on.
    ...
    to watch and flow the entire debate if
    3) Speaks—
    a) Don’t be evasive in CX. You know what an apriori is. You know what skep triggers are. If you play dumb, I will tank your speaks. I have 0 patience for such shenanigans.
    ...
    5) I presume aff absent explicit argumentation otherwise.
    I know you want to win, so please consider the round yours—do with it as you please. Take time to enjoy the process though because once it’s done, it’s done forever. I miss debating a lot. Good luck!
    ...
    have questions: paras.1993.kumar at gmail dot comparas@debatedrills.com
    -Paras
    (view changes)
  6. page Brundage, Rick edited ... Rick Brundage Apple Valley, MN ... recent update: 8/18/16 4/24/17 I debated LD in the …
    ...
    Rick Brundage
    Apple Valley, MN
    ...
    recent update: 8/18/164/24/17
    I debated LD in the late 90s/early 00s in Minnesota and the National Circuit. I'm currently the Director of Debate at Apple Valley.
    I’m probably a more traditional judge. I prefer a faster than conversational pace, but out right spreading with no vocal variety is just too hard to understand. I will vote for who I think has won the argument that best links back to the standard. This, however, does not excuse your other argument choices or your public speaking habits, and I reserve the right to show my displeasure of your arguments in your points. I’m pretty expressive and it should be obvious as to what I like and don’t like.
    ...
    judge for you.you (for example, if your best link is "you use the state, state bad", this would fall under the bad category). If you
    ...
    probably sufficient.
    Your speech time starts

    I hate prep stealing, so make sure you are actually ready to go
    when you stop prep. Restarting the timer after you have another 10 seconds to gather your flash drive leaves your computer.thoughts seems illegitimate. Also, I'm willing to be reasonable on transferring stuff - I don’t needhate wasted time here, too, though. Remember, rounds have a roadmap 97% of the time (especially ifrunning clock on them for TOC. If you waste too much time, the round is just an aff case and a neg case).gets decided by the computer if I hate prep stealing.dont have enough time to think.
    Cross examination should generally focus on clarifying positions, asking to check before you run theory, and to find specific flaws in evidence and arguments. Please use it strategically, and don’t be a jerk to your opponent.
    Empirical claims require empirical evidence.
    (view changes)
    2:49 pm
  7. page Morgenstein Jared edited ... To start out, I am pretty liberal in terms of accepting different takes on a resolution within…
    ...
    To start out, I am pretty liberal in terms of accepting different takes on a resolution within reason. That being said I do favor a level of tradition to the debate which pays respect to its origins as an alternative to fast paced, policy oriented debating in Policy. So I tend to vote off of the Value Structure more so than a series of cards (I'll get to these later).
    So, now the specifics:
    ...
    Douglas by wannabe Policy Debatersdebaters
    There are
    ...
    SAME TIME". But I never
    ...
    never heard a DPan Extemp judge say Congressthat PF style is fine. Why would they? Those are two completely different fucking events after all. So, thus,
    ...
    for LD. Stated simply,Simply stated, if you
    ...
    more your thing.thing (no offense to acid).
    -On speed in general
    ...
    okay with it also.it, and offer them some as well. Debating is
    ...
    be either of these things if your
    ...
    you.
    -On Etiquettecards
    A card, by its nature, is the argument of someone else. I want your arguments. Cards are lazy debating. It's okay to be lazy, but you can't always expect to win competitive events while being lazy. I can't tell you how many debates I've judged where I've heard the same case several times. This makes sense since everyone simply googles the resolution and copies and pastes the arguments they find online. It takes a lot more skill to consider the resolution yourself and craft your own unique argument. Try it
    -On etiquette

    Be courteous
    ...
    off to repetitively,repeatedly, or cuss
    ...
    it to them.them, within the bounds of reason.
    -On Other Stuffother stuff
    I don't care if you sit, stand, or levitate, whatever is more comfortable. I don't care if you read off a laptop or paper, whichever is more comfortable.
    Conclusion:
    (view changes)
    2:33 pm

More