Mary Bobbitt Paradigm
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Please include me on your email chains
People I wish to judge like: Sarah Lundeen, Jarrod Atchison, and Matt Struth.
I have recently left the debate community to work full-time. This means I know very little about the literature on the topic and you should explain acronyms etc.
I. Overview: Don't over adapt to me. I am a flow centric judge. I flow on paper thus you need to slow down on cp texts, theory, fw etc. I do not think of debate as a classroom but rather a seperate competitive activity. I default to the offense/defense paradigm. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I focus on analysis over evidence. I am most interested in the radical of the left and right. I am a very expressive judge; if you need different signals than traditional nonverbals please feel free to tell me and we will work something out.
A. Timing the debate and paperless: CX and prep starts as soon as your speech ends. The time ends when the jump drive is pulled out the computer. You should time yourselves; however, I will be enforcing efficiency. I am very strict about time.
Additionally - I will stop flowing as soon as the timer goes off.
B. Clarity: If I cannot understand the full text of your evidence clearly I will not flow your cards and will treat the tags as analytics. Slurring so badly that you are not reading the text of the evidence is akin to clipping. I will say clear one time before I stop flowing you. I will give more leeway in JV and novice.
C. Speaker points: While I love snark and jokes and hilarity, there is a line where that passes into just being mean. Snark/Jokes/Puns internal to the debate and arguments you are presenting are better than those just randomly put in. I think having respect for your opponents is fundamentally a good thing.
II. The K: The alternative is generally the weakest point of these arguments. I prefer debaters to demonstrate that they know the literature they are speaking from and not simply the cards that have been cut.
A. Flowing nontraditional debate: If you would like me to take notes or evaluate rounds beyond the traditional method of flowing, you must outline for me how to do so.
B. Perms - Counterperms are a difficult sell. I don't understand how they work.
C. Opacity: If you ask me to leave the debate because I am white you must tell me to do so and tell me what to do with my ballot. I will not leave you my ballot if I am the only judge – I will take it with me and flip a coin. I will only leave if both teams would like me to.
D. Social death theory: This argument is generally asserted rather than explained. Please give warrants for why it is true
E. Do not try to steal my ballot. They’re now mostly online anyway so I’m not sure how this would work..
III. Framework: I default to counter interpretations. I prefer traditional debate impacts as opposed to agonism impacts.
IV. Counterplans: Advantage CPs > Process CPs. This is probably my weakest point as a judge; if you are reading a techy counterplan you need to spend time explaining to me the mechanism of the cp. I have difficulty with internal net benefits vis-a-vis the permutation. I love a good theory debate.
A. Condo: All my predispositions are debatable but I think condo is generally good. I think perf con (CP + K) is good. However, reading two contradicting k's is probably not legit. I will not kick the CP for you unless you ask me to. Slow down on theory.
B. Other CP theory: International fiat seems suspect. The more I judge the less I like 50 state fiat.
V. DA – uniqueness determines the direction of the link. The words “Fiat solves the link” is not an argument. Explain what your interpretation of fiat is and why that doesn’t matter.
VI. Topicality – Enjoyable. Specification arguments are fun. Please provide me a case list for your interpretation. I think the most interesting part of this debate is competing interps versus reasonability. How do they function in the debate in terms of abuse and what interpreteations are? This is rarely developed in these debates.
VII. Case – I think analytics can take out an entire advantage. Let's have some fun impact turn debates because #reasons.
VIII. Theory - I
IX. Other comments
A. Card clipping: It’s an auto lose.
B. Marking Cards: If you do not physically mark a card during your speech I will not evaluate it if you ask me to call for it. I write down every card that is marked. If is your responsibility to jump a marked document to your opponents at their request.
C. If you are reading or showing pornography, I would ask that you explain the theory/method/story/video without actually showing or reading explicitly sexual content for the purposes of arousal. I will assume you have performed it in some manner to answer solvancy questions.
D. I do not enjoy debates where gendered/ableist/racist/exclusionary language is used.
E. CX: I flow it. Its binding but open to clarification.
IV. Topic Specific Notes:
For your enjoyment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWM2joNb9NE
Thank you for the opportunity to judge you.