homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:18 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:41 pm 
Offline
Tsarcastic
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 3512
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Under my own vine and fig tree
I think this would be a good idea to start. I realize that, unlike in college, you usually do not know who the judges are on your panels until the round begins, however I think beginning the norm for parents, coaches and alumni to post in depth reasoning of how they approach debate may be helpful for students. College parli's HSD (Net Benefits) has such a thread.

Anyone else down?

_________________
"It is not possible to choose between injustice and disorder. They are synonyms." -- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

~IM_R


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:38 am 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1374
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
Fantastic idea Joe. If you don't mind, I'll start us off, even though I'm technically not an alumni judge yet...never hurts to plan in advance ;) The below applies to any kind of debate, after that I have some specific ideas I like to see in the three main debate forms.

What I'm probably going to say in-round: I'm an alumni judge who did speech and debate for 7 years, so I know the lingo. I'm a flow judge and will try as hard as I can to not bring my preconceived ideas into the round. Weigh arguments well, and have fun! :)

What I'm saying here as my full philosophy: My judging philosophy (layman's terms, viewpoint on debate) is essentially tabula rasa (i.e., a complete blank slate). I am an extreme flow judge who will listen to any arguments whatsoever and will strive as hard as I can to not bring any bias into the round. I will not vote on speaks - I will vote purely on the flow. Bonus points if you actually are a good speaker and make funny jokes or meme references ;) I prefer quality to quantity, but am OK with speed, as long as its understandable. If a team runs a completely ridiculous argument, but the other team drops it, and it never gets discussed again, I will still vote on it.

With that in mind, however, I do NOT want to be forced to fill in the blanks for the debaters. If you run an argument, but never show me why or how your position is more tenable than your opponent's, I will be forced to litigate between "two ships passing in the night," and you may not like the outcome. ;) SO. Impact calculus (weighing impacts and arguments) is super key with me.

Team Policy: I'm very stock issues oriented, but I am open to hearing arguments outside of those. Besides that, see the above and convince me. :)

Lincoln-Douglas: If you contest the value, give me good warrants on why your value should be preferred and how that impacts the round. And if you go for an application-centric debate, don't get stuck quibbling over semantics or intricacies in applications, but go more big-picture and show why xyz application is so vital. LD is about what ought to be (what we should value), and your job is to show me why your side of the resolution is better. I'm open to balanced negs, Kritiks, pirated values, etc.

Parli: What can I say? It's open season in Parli. :D In Parli, I will knock or nod for what I'm liking, but don't be discouraged if I'm doing so for your opponents - I will find every opportunity to encourage and build you up with my participation/feedback during the round! :) Just because I knock more for someone, does NOT necessarily mean I am automatically voting for that side.

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:20 am 
Offline
is jealous
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:50 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: climbing in yo windows, snatchin' all yo people up
Oh I love this! Great idea! :D

Alright, Stoa alumni here.

Applies to all kinds of debate:
- Tag and impact everything. If you don't tag, more often than not it won't go on my flow. If you don't impact, it won't count as much as you would like it to. If you want it to matter, make it matter.
- Watch the pen. If you see me put down my pen and give you a stern look - move on, stop arguing that point. (Generally happens if you bring up points like "OMG GAYS ARE EVIL" - Stuff that would generally offend a non-Christian judge. If you keep pressing it, expect low speaks. I do that not because I'm personally offended, but as a lesson. It's not gonna fly in the outside-Stoa world, and Stoa's meant to prepare you for that world.)
- I'm cool with fast-paced talking, but don't let your organisation suffer.

Team Policy-Specific
- I'll measure both on Stock Issues and Net Benefits, primarily, if no specific criterion is presented.
- Neg, don't press Topicality unless it's clearly non-Topical.
- Clearly link all of your points and impact your evidence.
- Mention nuclear war and I will kill you.

Lincoln-Douglas-Specific
- Try to have as much value clash as possible.
- More importantly, impact things back to the resolution and show how your argument proves the resolution true/false.
- Mention Hitler and I will kill you.

Parli-Specific
- I'm generally pretty responsive, so watch for what I'm knocking/nodding on and focus on those arguments.
- Like Evan, knocking =/= winning, especially if you don't impact those arguments^ on voting issues.
- Wild arguments are totally cool with me in parli. If you can make a solid logical link with it, I will totally buy you saying that cannibalism is good because it reduces surplus population.
- You can get bonus speaker points if you make me laugh uncontrollably. ;)

_________________
Elizabeth Danford | Alumni


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
Sure, why not? This is more or less the philosophy I have posted for NFA-LD.

Experience:
Two years NCFCA TP debate
On and off coach in the NCFCA for 6 years
3 years NFA-LD and NPDA competition at Hillsdale College
1 year assistant coach at Hillsdale
1 semester head coach at Marshall University

Philosophy:
I see debate as a game of advocacy, not a search for truth. That means I do not care one bit about the factual truth of your claims, as long as you have evidence backing it up. I default policymaker, meaning that if the aff will leave the world a better place I vote aff. If not, I vote neg. I do no vote in stock issues unless you give me very clear, warranted reasons, and specifically tell me how to weigh the round in terms of stock issues.* I will vote on terminal neg solvency arguments, but only if they 100% prove the aff won't solve. That is rare, but it happens. Pretty much the only way solvency will ever be terminal is if the argument is completely dropped. I default to voting for the biggest impact first, regardless of timeframe. I do not understand probability arguments, as for me probability is determined by the ink on the flow, not some "real world" argument. If you want me to vote in some other order, make the argument and I will listen.

I will vote on topicality and have an average threshhold. I will vote on jurisdiction alone, although in-round abuse helps. I have no problem with running T as a time suck. I will listen to procedurals other than T, although I think they are generally only useful as a strategic tool to keep the aff from shifting. I will listen to Ks and will vote on them as long as they have a clear framework and alt. Counterplans are perfectly fine and while they have to be mutually exclusive, they can be topical and/or conditional as long as you can defend the theory.

I am fine with speed as long as your opponent can understand and flow.

*I have yet to see someone do this properly (and I promise that's not just me having a high threshhold), including the semifinals round at the NFA national championship, so trust me when I say you can't just say "vote stock issues!"

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:39 am
Posts: 29
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Split between the states of Olympus and Midlands
I love the idea.

Experience: NCFCA alumnus of 5 years. I did LD and 9 different categories of speeches during my time (ironmanning Regionals with 5 speeches my last 2 years). I went to Nats in LD and speeches my last 2 years (breaking in LD). Now I do moot court and mock trial. I've been coaching LD for 3 years or so now, and I've coached over 60 individuals from 6 different states.

What I'm probably going to tell you in-round: Organization is important, because I'm going to flow a lot and I will be happy if you keep my flow organized. Give me warrants for your arguments -- don't just tell me that it's so, give me some reason why it's so. Give me impacts: If you leave me to draw my own conclusions about how important an argument is, I will probably conclude that it is not very important.

More complete LD philosophy: LD does not mean that you can argue without any support. I want support (not necessarily evidence, but give me some reason to believe you on any issues that could be disputed). I hate definition debates, although sometimes I recognize that a definition argument is necessary. With that on the table, let me also say that if you try to define your opponent out of the round completely, your opponent doesn't even have to argue that point for me to reject it as abusing definitions. If your arguments depend on a very specific and/or sketchy definition, expect a great deal of skepticism from me.
If your opponent has subsumed your value, you will need an exceedingly persuasive justification to get me to believe that we should only look at your value (I haven't seen anyone pull it off yet). You'd be better off trying to show me that you can achieve that value better.
Speaking of which, values are important, but they're not the end-all-be-all of LD. You can lose the value/accept your opponent's value and still win. Likewise, the mere fact that I flow a value your way doesn't mean you win.
If an argument isn't particularly important, tell me why and move on. Don't tell me it isn't important and then proceed to spend a great deal of time talking about it.
Alternative weighing mechanisms are ok, but you need to explain them clearly to me and be able to defend them well.
I hate debate jargon, and I hate speed. I may be the only one of the alumni judges who will tell you this, but slow down and speak to me like I'm a normal human being. You wouldn't speed-read complex legal arguments to a jury. Don't do the functional equivalent of that to me.

More complete TP philosophy: I am an LDer at heart. Thus, have pity on me and explain all your TP concepts to me. I've seen several policy rounds that I've just been completely confused by. Trust me, you don't want that to happen.
Assume I know nothing about how your case connects to the resolution. That's probably a pretty safe assumption. ;) (One example: I watched a policy round UN year where everybody was talking about some treaty in Dubai. They never told me how that related to the UN. Don't do that.)
Give me some overarching, big-picture reasons to vote for/against Aff's plan.
I'm not a big fan of topicality, but I'm also not a big fan of grossly non-topical Aff cases. Negs that run T on clearly topical cases lose credibility points in my mind. Negs that run T against non-topical cases usually win in my mind.
Tell me how I should weigh the round. Should I use the stock issues heavily? Should I use a value-criterion system that you're going to provide? Should I use some other weighing mechanism? Give me the answers.
Don't get stuck in the weeds. Don't argue about one little piece of evidence if there's some big-picture argument that you can make. Don't get so caught up pointing out the details of each individual tree to me that you don't tell me about the whole forest.
I'll repeat my last point under LD. I hate debate jargon, and I hate speed. I may be the only one of the alumni judges who will tell you this, but slow down and speak to me like I'm a normal human being. You wouldn't speed-read complex legal arguments to a jury. Don't do the functional equivalent of that to me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:57 pm 
Offline
Bumble! Bumble!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:30 pm
Posts: 1152
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Bumbling about in beautiful Colorado
I've been around S&D since I started timing at age 6. I was a competitor for 4 years, during which I competed in TP, LD, and Parli, along with most of the IEs.

Clarity and logic are extremely important to me. If I don't understand what you're saying, or if what you're saying doesn't make logical sense, I can't vote for you. That's just how it works. I've developed more opinions about more aspects of theory than you will probably ever realize exist, and the chances are basically 100% that something you think is completely normal is very wrong by my lights. (This is probably less true for HSDers). Therefore, if you bring up any theory at all, you also need to provide me with a persuasive explanation of your opinion. Pretend I know nothing about theory. If you explain it well, I'll buy it for the sake of the round, even if you're doing something as horrible as running a non-topical CP. ;) If you don't, I won't, whether or not I agree with you. It'll become a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.
Ideally, don't bring up theory. I'll just accept whatever the consensus seems to be on stuff. If y'all don't disagree on it, I reserve the right to rant about it on the ballot, but it won't be part of my decision. If you run an argument, T or anything else, theory or otherwise, apparently with the intent of buying time, I will perceive your position as weak. Don't do it.

Repeat everything you want written down, and tell me exactly where to flow it. My brain is not a recorder. I will probably remember and write down more of what you say than the average person would, because of my background in debate and an on-going habit of flowing sermons, but that is still a very tiny percentage of everything you say. So clarity and organization are key. I really can't say that enough. If I don't write it down, when I get back to the lounge chances are good that as far as my brain is concerned, you didn't say it. You don't want that to happen to your killer argument. If it's important, repeat it.

TP only:
I vote exclusively on stock issues, (if your plan has already been passed, there's no point in me passing it; if it won't work, has no advantages/has DAs that outweigh them, or isn't resolutional, ditto) but I don't want to hear you talk about them. They're an excellent tool to use when writing or evaluating a case, but they are not inherently persuasive. And I've heard too much about chairs and swinging pianos.

Mostly, I want to hear a strong focus on Ads vs DAs. Those are your strongest arguments, and you should focus the most time and effort on them.

LD and Parli:
Your value (substitute weighing mechanism for parli) should be my way of deciding the round. Every word out of your mouth should link back to that value, even if you concede your opponent's value, and the debate should revolve around the value(s). If you lose the value, you lose the round, even if all the rest of your arguments were super amazing and awesome. If your arguments do not link back to the value, I have no way of measuring their importance, and they therefore cannot factor into my decision. If no one brings up a value, or if it/they get lost somewhere in the middle, I will be forced to judge on my personal opinion of the refutation; whoever won what I consider the most important arguments wins. I hate doing that, and the reality is you probably don't want me doing that. You and I would both prefer to have you tell me which arguments are important and why. So stick with your value like a barnacle to a whale. Make it the centre and foundation of your entire strategy.

_________________
My guideline is, if you ever have to ask yourself if you're doing something creepy, you probably are. But then go ahead and do it anyway because being creepy is fun.
~JeremyB


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 4:25 am 
Offline
The Great White Sharc
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 4769
Home Schooled: Yes
I have all kinds of personal preferences on different theory stuff, and I don't believe tabula rasa is actually possible, though I generally judge completely 'on the flow' as they say. I'm judging in region X now, and if anyone wants to know any of my personal preferences or thoughts are on different areas of debate theory and strategy, ask! That said, the more I think about it, the more simple my "judging philosophy" becomes:

Tell me why you win the argument and why winning that argument matters.

_________________
Marc Davis

I currently help coach at TACT in Region X.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 5:31 am 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1374
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
013 wrote:
I don't believe tabula rasa is actually possible, though I generally judge completely 'on the flow' as they say.


Fair enough. I know you weren't responding to me, Marc, but I just wanted to drop in here again to expound on my beliefs on tabula rasa, as that is the basic foundation of my judging criteria. :)

Tabula rasa, in its purest form, is practically impossible. Saying otherwise is a logical fallacy - everyone has preconceived ideas and biases. But trust me, as a debate judge, I plan to be the most tabula rasa as possible, even to the extent that I will buy illegitimate, illogical, or plain ridiculous arguments if they are not properly refuted in-round. I personally take the idea of having no "third debater in the room" to its extreme logical extent, and do not want to have any (read: A.N.Y.) of my personal biases influence my decision. That being said, I can see why people wouldn't like my personal judging paradigm, and that's ok. After all, it's my view of debate and not necessarily yours. :) It's just that I've had many "third debater" judges who insert their own arguments (which were never discussed in-round), and those experiences have pushed me towards being as purely tabula rasa as practically possible. Is my purist form of tabula rasa a little extreme? Maybe. Is it not really real-world? Sure. But in debater-land, it is I who get to make the decisions if I pick up your ballot ;P

013 wrote:
Tell me why you win the argument and why winning that argument matters.


Ooh this is good. Probably the most succinct summary of what a good number of judges want to see you make happen.

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:20 pm 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3986
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
This is a fantastic idea, Joe.

I've only judged TP and I plan to keep it that way. LD is completely opposite everything I've done in NCFCA. My RFDs would be unhelpful at best. Sure, anyone can judge LD in theory, but it takes someone with experience to make the most educated decisions. Anything less is passable at best and a disservice to the competition at worse. It's far easier to make the wrong decision in LD than it is in TP. Only the experienced can adequately discern the balance. So that's my non-judging philosophy. :P

TP Philosophy: I'm typically a stock issues judge but I also prefer debaters to take into account comparative advantage. Barring topicality, there's only one question I have as a judge at the end of a round: should this plan be enacted? If negative teams don't bring up any DAs, they've automatically crippled their position. On the other hand, affirmative teams need to have legitimate advantages they can defend with logic and evidence and need to be willing to stress them in the final speeches. Weigh the arguments; if you don't I will. Finally, I can only vote on arguments if they're backed with sufficient logic or evidence.

The basic stuff:Obviously debaters need to impact their evidence and arguments, be organized, be clear, sign post, etc. These are just elements of being a good speaker.

Dropped arguments: Nine times out of ten, if you drop an argument, you've lost the argument. Doesn't necessarily mean you've lost the round. As a judge, I'll balance the arguments. Also, I'm willing to give teams teams leeway if the argument that is dropped is particularly obtuse. If the argument that is dropped isn't backed by evidence, then I don't even consider it an argument.

Topicality: I take topicality very seriously but I've seen some really bogus T presses in my time. It can be very easy to use topicality as a kind of technical loophole to get an easy win. I won't buy it. If negative teams are unable to clearly explain why an affirmative plan is out of bounds of the resolution, I may throw out the argument altogether. This is because...

Both teams have burden of proof: Regarding the plan and its elements, yes the Affirmative team has the burden of proof to explain what their plan does and what effects it will have. This does not mean that negatives can bring up arguments without substantiating them and assume they win the argument by default. If negative teams are not able to back up their arguments with sufficient evidence, they are non-issues. I can't vote on a non-issue.

Experience: Four years competing, but I'd been a timer long before that. Considering all the rounds I've watched, the workshops I attended, practice rounds I've judged, real rounds I've judged, etc, I was around competitive NCFCA debate for at least eight years.

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
IrishMex Rebel wrote:
I think this would be a good idea to start. I realize that, unlike in college, you usually do not know who the judges are on your panels until the round begins, however I think beginning the norm for parents, coaches and alumni to post in depth reasoning of how they approach debate may be helpful for students. College parli's HSD (Net Benefits) has such a thread.

Anyone else down?

I pushed a few regional coordinators / dictators for years to start something like this, but it never happened.
And I would post a judging philosophy right now except I'm too lazy

_________________
Two hundred degrees, that's why they call me Mr. Fahrenheit.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 652
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
willmalson wrote:
IrishMex Rebel wrote:
I think this would be a good idea to start. I realize that, unlike in college, you usually do not know who the judges are on your panels until the round begins, however I think beginning the norm for parents, coaches and alumni to post in depth reasoning of how they approach debate may be helpful for students. College parli's HSD (Net Benefits) has such a thread.

Anyone else down?

I pushed a few regional coordinators / dictators for years to start something like this, but it never happened.
And I would post a judging philosophy right now except I'm too lazy

Last year a bunch of debaters put up a spreadsheet on the parents and their judging experience/philosophy/quirks. Its still out there somewhere. It would have been helpful in a few rounds I debated. Maybe it will happen again sometime.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:36 pm 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1374
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
JohnMarkPorter1 wrote:
willmalson wrote:
I pushed a few regional coordinators / dictators for years to start something like this, but it never happened.
And I would post a judging philosophy right now except I'm too lazy

Last year a bunch of debaters put up a spreadsheet on the parents and their judging experience/philosophy/quirks. Its still out there somewhere. It would have been helpful in a few rounds I debated. Maybe it will happen again sometime.

Good idea - just be careful not to have this turn into a place to bash people. I've worked on collaborative spreadsheets similar to what you're proposing, and sometimes contributors had the tendency to put down quite unflattering things about other competitors and parents, all in the name of "collaboration" and "information sharing." Put down idiosyncrasies and experience and philosophies, but make sure everyone does so only in a way that respects others.

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited