Last changed on
Sun February 25, 2024 at 4:30 AM PDT
Unionville '23
4 years CX, 3 years LD. i hated reading thru paradigms so i'm keeping this short :)
tech > truth. be nice, have fun! pls add me to the email chain: unionvillewn@gmail.com
CX at cal:
- Haven't judged this topic yet, so please don't assume I know the acronyms
- start slow then build up, takes a bit time for me to adjust to circuit speed.
did all speeches at some point lol. My partner was more policy-focused while i was more K-focused, read plans on aff and neg strat was a combo of DA, CP, and cap K. So i'm def familiar with most argument style and had plenty of rounds on both sides of K v plan.
--> would prefer to have less than 6 flows
--> explain your CPs, would say that I'm def not the best judge there for complicated CPs, usually find them hard to understand & interpret. Also I do think that some random niche process CPs are probably abusive?? Not to say you shouldn't run them, all depends on the round and what's strategic
--> not great for judging topicality against plans, esp w/ my limited topic knowledge here.
--> threshold for voting on theory might be slightly lower than your average policy judge bc of LD experience
--> love clever cross-apps and turns
--> love a good K debate
--> love a good clash debate w/ good weighing
To LDeRs:
1 - stock Ks, larp
2 - creative K-ish phil
3 - theory, T
4 - confusing CPs, Kant & Hobbes (smh), pomo Ks
5/S - tricks, friv theory
for novices:
1 - please use up all your speech time!!!If u still have time left, default to doing some weighing or summarizing your case, those can never go wrong.
2 - Rebuttal Speech Structure (not required but it helps to be organized) should follow a SAR structure: Summarize, Answer, Respond. First, summarize your contention (this is your offense), answer the defense that your opponent has read against you, and then respond and attack (offense) against your opponent's case.
3 - Extending your case--> There's often a misconception that if your opponent drops something, then it's auto-assumed that you win it and it is true. It's only true if you also summarize your contention and provide warrants for why your contention is true and how it outweighs your opponent's impacts
speaks:
+0.2 for being paperless, debate doesn't deserve to waste that much paper
+0.2 for not spreading when you go against novice or traditional debaters, make the debate educational and not inaccessible
-0.2 if you read theory or tricks against novice or traditional debaters (other type of args are fine tho)
