Recent Changes

Sunday, June 17

  1. page Davis, Parker edited I debated for four years in high school and have been a coach for three. In general, being clear a…
    I debated for four years in high school and have been a coach for three. In general, being clear about what you’re arguing (like giving overviews) makes me more comfortable voting for you. Assume that I am not familiar with the argument/literature of your 1AC, K, etc.
    You can add me to the email chain (Parker.Davis23@gmail.com) but I’ll only open up docs after the round if I’m being told that the content of a card needs to be a part of my decision. I’m not going to sit and read through it during your speeches, meaning you still should make sure we’re on the same page and that I can understand you. If debate was just everyone sending speech docs back and forth we could all stay home and save a lot of time and money.
    I debated for four years in high school and have been a coach for three. In general, being clear about what you’re arguing (like giving overviews) makes me more comfortable voting for you. I find that
    ...
    decisions come in two types of rounds: The first is when I’m
    ...
    round differently. AssumeThe second is when I am in a round between two very good teams that are engaging at a high level (and generally pretty fast) on positions I am not super familiar with the argument/literaturewith. In these types of your 1AC, K, etc. Feelrounds I still need clear and precise extensions in the 1AR and clear voters in the 2NR/2AR. The more time you devote to overviews and clear extensions/analysis, the more I'll actually be able to understand the argument.
    Feel
    comfortable to
    Framework – If you are able to successfully frame the round in your favor, it can go far to help you win the round. It is important that both teams engage each other’s interpretations instead of just reading and extending. If neither team suggests a standard for evaluation, I’ll default policy maker.
    Case Debate – Specific on-case arguments can be very compelling. I always have believed that smart analytics are preferable to just reading a bunch of cards.
    (view changes)
    1:11 pm

Saturday, June 16

  1. 11:50 am
  2. page Kang, Akum edited I debated for 4 years at King HS in Tampa, FL (2014-2018), and qualled to the TOC my senior year. …
    I debated for 4 years at King HS in Tampa, FL (2014-2018), and qualled to the TOC my senior year.
    I will basically vote on any argument with a warrant. I think that the round should really be up to the debaters, so just do what you are most comfortable with. I don’t really hold any strong views on debate anymore so the best way for you to get my ballot is tell me how I should judge the round and debate according to that vision.
    Important stuff:
    - It is difficult for me to vote on floating offense, so you should probably have some way for me to filter offense, (most people call this a “framework”) although it could be in whatever form you want.
    - I always thought the best debaters were able to use extensions and overviews effectively to deal with their opponents’ arguments on the line-by-line. You will probably get higher speaks from me if you do this.
    - This also means I think extensions need at very minimum a claim and a warrant. I find it hard to vote on arguments extended without at least some attempt at these things.
    - I will evaluate disclosure like any other argument.
    I will assign speaks based on argument quality and strategy, and I will try to average about a 28.

    (view changes)
    11:50 am
  3. page K edited ... Kanellopoulos, Paul Kanesa-Thasan, Amrit Kang, Akum Kang, Dillon Kang, Inkuk
    ...
    Kanellopoulos, Paul
    Kanesa-Thasan, Amrit
    Kang, Akum
    Kang, Dillon
    Kang, Inkuk
    (view changes)
    11:50 am

Tuesday, June 12

Monday, June 11

  1. page Searles, Brian edited ... ― Time limits in debate give debaters an incentive to articulate more quickly ― however the ra…
    ...
    ― Time limits in debate give debaters an incentive to articulate more quickly ― however the rational quality ― rational processes ― and rational justifications of argumentation including the ― truth of empirical support of argumentation demonstrated via contextual evidence ― is more important in adjudication a fair and just decision than the amount or quantity of arguments within an allocated scope of time―
    ― Demonstrating faculties of reason ― information―transmission efficiency ― and time adjustment skills ― will be more effective in demonstrating ― and advancing argumentative strategy and positon ― than articulating quickly or ― with great speed ― at the cost of clarity―
    x―_Brian_Victor―_Searles_II_――Brian―Victor―Searles―II―
    ― I prefer Kritique―s that are Empirically―Scientifically―Psychologically sound ― and justified ―Psychoanalysis―Psychodynamic― ― I generally determine the Kritique on the implication framing of the ethic―meaning―value to life component of the debate― A turns case argument is persuasive ― but not sufficient to outweigh the AFF― Explain your framework for the debate ― and framework regarding implication comparison― Withstandind the differntiation between argumentation and writing
    ― Kritique debates to be clear not only in articulating comprehensively but also in terms of clarity of information―process of your argumentation― Correct word choice context and precision of empirical―scientific concepts and terms will improve ― clarity of information―transmission in Kritique debates―
    (view changes)
    4:27 am
  2. page Searles, Brian edited ... x―_Overview_――IV―An―Overview―Of―Reasoning―Processes―Strategy― ―Indicates argumentation must b…
    ...
    x―_Overview_――IV―An―Overview―Of―Reasoning―Processes―Strategy―
    ―Indicates argumentation must be evident of an intentional―strategy― ― I view debate as an educational activity where two competing teams demonstrate argumentation over the topic― and―or contextual questions―
    ...
    on developing one―s argument by
    ...
    on enacting one―s strategy― Strategy
    ...
    and argumentation―s contradictionContradiction or coherence
    ...
    the rational integritycorrespondence―Coherence and quality of one―s rebuttal argumentative―strategy―
    ...
    a negative implication ―implication―
    x―_Argumentation_Framework_――V―Argumentation―Logistics― ―Must Justify Reasoning―Process―
    ― Arguments should consist of a claim and a warrant― supported by qualified and―or empirical―scientific evidence―
    ...
    x―_Kritique_――VIII―Crtitique― ―Krtitique― ―Positions Must result from research in Psycho―Dynamic―Empirical―Science―
    ― I prefer Kritique―s that are Empirical―Scientifically―Psychologically sound ― and justified ―Psycho―Analytic―Psycho―Dynamic― ― I generally determine the Kritique on the implication framing of the ethic―meaning―value to life component of the debate― A turns case argument is persuasive ― but not sufficient to outweigh the Affirmative― Explain your framework for the debate ― and framework regarding implication comparison― Withstanding the differentiation between argumentation and writing
    ...
    information―transmission of one―s argumentation ―
    ...
    will improve one―s clarity of
    x―_Topicality_and_Theory_――IX―Topicality and Theory― ―Positions Must Result from research on the Topic―
    ― I will vote on this type of argument if there is enough quality argumentation ― and rational justification to vote on theoretical questions ― This has to be determined by the particular round ― It Is necessary that time trade off and strategy implications are explained in terms of fairness and education―
    ...
    ― There is evidence that Articulating―Written―English―Language ― quickly ― or with great speed ― out―loud ― can improve memory ― and information processing skills― However ― It is self
    ― defeating if one is articulating so quickly that one incurs a cost on clarity and―or the capacity to transmit information― One should be comprehensible―
    ...
    support of one―s argumentation demonstrated
    ...

    ― Demonstrating one―s faculties of reason ― one―s information―transmission efficiency ― and one―s time adjustment
    ...
    and advancing one―s argumentative strategy
    x―_Brian_Victor―_Searles_II_――Brian―Victor―Searles―II― ―
    ― I prefer Kritique―s that are Empirically―Scientifically―Psychologically sound ― and justified ―Psychoanalysis―Psychodynamic― ― I generally determine the Kritique on the implication framing of the ethic―meaning―value to life component of the debate― A turns case argument is persuasive ― but not sufficient to outweigh the AFF― Explain your framework for the debate ― and framework regarding implication comparison― Withstandind the differntiation between argumentation and writing
    ...
    will improve one―s― clarity of
    (view changes)
    4:26 am
  3. page Searles, Brian edited ... specifically for policy argumentation in the later rebuttals― I view the policy version of deb…
    ...
    specifically for policy argumentation in the later rebuttals― I view the policy version of debate through the framework of opportunity costs ― and costs benefit analyses―
    x―_Kritique_――VIII―Crtitique― ―Krtitique― ―Positions Must result from research in Psycho―Dynamic―Empirical―Science―
    ...
    of the debate.debate― A turns
    ― It is especially important for Kritique debates to be clear ― even more so than other frameworks for debate ― due to the complex nature of the themes ― subjects ― and research literature in the academic disciplines ― from which Kritique research originates ― Clarity ― not only in articulating comprehensibility ― but also in terms of clarity of information―transmission of one―s argumentation ― should be emphasized in Kritique debates― Correct word choice ― context ― and precision of empirical―scientific concepts ― and terms will improve one―s clarity of information―transmission in Kritique debates―
    x―_Topicality_and_Theory_――IX―Topicality and Theory― ―Positions Must Result from research on the Topic―
    (view changes)
    4:20 am
  4. page Searles, Brian edited ... ― Engaging in one the above Shizophrenia―Errors― does not indicate an automatic loss ― or Poin…
    ...
    ― Engaging in one the above Shizophrenia―Errors― does not indicate an automatic loss ― or Point deduction ― but rather will result in a decreased probability of persuading me of your arguments merit ― and thus winning my ballot―
    ―Conclusions must follow from the premises ― Arguments must follow the laws of thought ― and have intelligibility―
    x―_Policy_―_ADV_―_CP_―_DA――VII―Policy―Logistical―Plans― Advantages―Counterplans―Disadvantages―x―_Policy_―_ADV_―_CP_―_DA――VII―Policy―Logistical―Plans―Advantages―Counterplans―Disadvantages― ―Must Result
    ― Arguments that fall within the domain of Political―Empirical―Science are educational ― necessary ― and sensible― It Is necessary to explain the logical chain of connections and effects ― from the uniqueness ―non―inevitability― argument to the implication ―the negative consequences of the link―
    specifically for policy argumentation in the later rebuttals― I view the policy version of debate through the framework of opportunity costs ― and costs benefit analyses―
    (view changes)
    4:18 am

More