Penelope OBrien ParadigmLast changed 12/14 5:45P MDT
Conflicts: Park City
I vote off the flow 10/10 times
Good evidence is awesome
Be bold and take risks
Defense is overvalued
Weighing and offense are undervalued
Things that make me happy:
- Great signposting
- Empirics and quantifiable impacts.
- Lots of evidence
- Using Cross well - make it constructive. Be sassy. Being funny never hurts, either.
- Flashing evidence or being able to hand over evidence speedily.
- Off-time roadmaps 100% of the time.
Things that make me sad:
- Improperly citing evidence
- Miscutting/manipulating evidence
- Drawn-out discussions in Cross that go nowhere.
What I vote on - IMPACTS 1st!! If you don't provide impact calculations then I will base it off of what I think is most important. Framework (this means Value and Criterion) just because it's second doesn't mean I don't care about it. If you drop framework, I will drop you.
Extending Args - If you extend an arg, you have a very good possibility of winning the round, that said if you extend an arg and don't give me impact based on that idea, or a card, it's meaningless to me. When people say he/she didn't attack my card, it's not impactful and you don't win based on that.
Big Fan - If you have a CP make sure you explain it correctly and always give impacts and solvency for your CP. If your CP doesn't have solvency I won't vote on it. Advocacies are a necessity in LD. If you don't advocate for anything then I think you are only trying to get out of the negative impacts of the case.
Observations/ Burdens - If the AFF or NEG uses an observation or burden, you must answer it or you will fall under that. This means if your case doesn't follow the observation I will vote you down. You must answer them, or risk losing the round.
I have never had a good reason to learn about Kritical debate, so I have no understanding of how quality K’s should function and work, or how to judge a K. That said, I’m not going to specifically penalize you for running a K, I just probably won’t know what’s going on.
Okay - I like to speed up to 300 wpm-ish. If you go really, really slowly I will get bored and may miss an argument. Second, if I can't understand you then I will set my pen down. If you don't see the pen down I will say clear. After the second time, and if nothing changes, I will stop flowing completely.
Slow down on tags and authors if you’re a speed demon.
Other technical things:
- I’ll only evaluate things that are in both in 1AR and 2AR. Same for the NEG 1NR and 2NR
- If you bring up a new attack in the 2AR or 2NR, you may still win but your speaker points will make you sad
- I’m chill with any new evidence/args in the first summary, but no new evidence in the second summary please
- I don’t flow cross-ex (this is my me-time during the round)
Short version - good at debate = high speaks
- pretty speaker = entirely meaningless
Long version - I give speaks based on the competitiveness of a tournament:
30 – you should go to finals
29.5 – you’re probably in mid-to-late breaks
29 - you should clear
28 – you might clear
27.5 - average. 3-3, probably.
26 - below average
25 and below - means that you were abusive and mean to your opponent