Damien Chuck Ballingall Memorial Invitational Virtual Edition
2020 — La Verne/Virtual, CA/US
WSDC Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Worlds Schools Debate:
1. Build on your previous speakers' analysis.
2. Make any clarifications or definition challenges at the beginning of your speech.
3. Mechanise all arguments and your stance appropriately, if Mechanisation isn't provided, practical arguments aren't as strong as they would be with mech.
4. Debate is an art, don't give up on style in hopes of pushing forth more matter
5. Always integrate evidence into your arguments, and show how they are justified on your side of the house.
6. Signposting is very important as it provides a clear structure for your speech.
7. Explicitly weigh all the harms and impacts to show why your side is better.
8. Respect your opponents, do not make personal attacks, and be equitable.
Please do not speak too fast.
Enjoy the tournament!
Position yourself so I can hear you. Don't speak into your laptop or stand on the opposite side of the room. Don't read typed-out things like they are the text of a card. Slow down and change the intonation of your voice when you're speaking.
I normally look to impact calc throughout debate
If I don't understand something, I will not vote on it even if it is conceded.
I am getting tired of multiple conditional cp's. Seriously, it is getting out of hand. The neg gets 1 conditional cp or Kritik.
I not only look for argumentation but also HOW you debate (aka how well you can convince me).
Clarity is key. If you are spreading and I can not clearly hear your arguments I will not flow them.
last speeches should start with telling me exactly what should be on my ballot.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR:
Things I will not vote on:
Arguments that suggest students should engage in risky behavior.
Death is good.
Fear of death is bad
I mostly judge WSD, the below applies to such.
Clarity and cohesion (as a team) are good. Build off of each other.
If you don't have enough content to fill the entire allotted time, don't feel pressured to drag it out. A good speech can be shorter than 8 minutes.
Try to resolve conflicts on definitions and assumptions quickly. Not doing so cuts into the amount of time debating the substantive points, and it helps neither side.
Debate is a performance as much as it is intellectual exercise, so try to make sure your audience can understand it -- speaking at a conversational pace is best.
I have been doing debate for over 8 years now and have debated in pretty much every format possible both in America and Canada. If you have specific questions that aren't covered here, ask me before hand.
TL:DR - I like quality debates that are built on good strategic decisions that are appropriate in the context of your format. I do not believe in replacing thorough and nuanced logic and explanations with jargon, even in the interest of efficiency. IF YOU HAVE ME AS A WSD JUDGE, THERE IS A SPECIFIC SECTION BELOW.
While I can keep up with pretty much anything you run, I will not do any work for you. If you are competing in an American debate format and are running something progressive, assuming its appropriate for your format, make sure you do everything you need to do to make it a convincing and mechanically complete argument. That includes explaining what you're running and why you're running it. While I likely have experience with the progressive arguments you are running, in the interest of judging tabula rasa, I will pretend I have none.
I can keep up with spreading but would prefer not too. If you are going to spread, flash me your case beforehand.
I have nearly zero tolerance for tactics and strategies that are exclusionary to your opponent and other debaters in general, especially when those tactics are used against newer debaters. I will not awards losses for this behavior because I realize it is somewhat subjective, but I will adjust speaker points.
WORLD SCHOOLS SPECIFIC INFO
WSD is not an American format and I have zero tolerance for debaters that treat it like one. Understand the different assumptions and rules that underpin WSD before debating in it and do not assume they are the same as American debate formats because they are not. While there are many differences, here are some key ones to keep in mind:
- No cards
- No technical jargon
- No progressive arguments
- No spreading
- Greater emphasis on rhetoric and logic
- Debates must focus on the core of the issue rather than niche arguments
- It is acceptable to drop arguments if they are no longer important. Dropped arguments do not immediately mean a team has won
- MOST IMPORTANTLY: WSD debates are focused on the entire world, or some reasonably large segment of it, rather than just America
With that being said, WSD is a growing format in the US and I understand and respect that. People will make mistakes and default to habits from American formats and that is okay as long as you are not intentionally trying to change the format by bringing in American debate strategies and rules.
Fall 2020 Updates:
I have not heard online debates in years, so if spreading is involved, please go a tiny bit slower (~80%). Failure to do so may result in a "i didn't hear any of that" RFD. Default procedure in the event of disconnect will be what the tournament specifies, if they don't specify I'll pause the round and give you 5-10 minutes to reconnect (depending on how late the tournament is running and how much tab will yell at me if I delay sending in a ballot).
I think tournaments yelling at people to keep their cameras on is absurd--it's good practice, but wifi issues are a legitimate concern. If you need to, feel free to keep your camera off if it improves your audio quality (I will follow suit if my wifi is being difficult).
I don't like friv theory and I don't care what event it is. Please stop reading theory just because you don't like what your opponent is doing.
If there are concerns/questions: email me or flag me down before round.
I did four years of high school debate (2015-2019) which was primarily policy although I did a brief stint in LD (circuit and local) with moderate success. I’ve been both a 2N and a 2A while in policy. I’m now at UVA studying math and sociology, where I coach middle school PF and Speech. In other words, I can probably pick a winner. Since I don’t coach/judge circuit LD or policy regularly, overly topic specific things or community norms on T and theory will probably require more explanation as well as a slight decrease in speed for the first 30 seconds or so. LD specific arguments will probably also lose me to some extent.
I was never a super successful debater and there will be things I don’t understand being said or done. That being said, most of the things on this paradigm are a weak default and the longer I've been out of debate, the more I vote against things on this paradigm or that I think are true.
Top level thoughts
Things not up for negotiation: Speech/prep time and the fact that I am signing your ballot and it is only who I think won.
I don’t think I’ll have to do this but if a round is getting out of hand (racial slurs, deadnaming, misgendering, sexual harassment, violence of any kind), I reserve the right to step in, stop the round and get tab involved.
Based on my experience, I am very concerned about the way people treat small school debaters, young debaters starting out or debaters who debate on primarily lay/traditional circuits. If you're going to be rude to these debaters for not understanding your argument (being unwilling to explain it, calling them names when they aren't sure how to engage it, etc) or refusing to adapt even the tiniest bit then I will give you a 25 with very little sympathy.
Tech > Truth within reason. I think bad arguments should be beaten and called out but the proliferation of terrible theory arguments in LD is convincing me that not every bad argument deserves a full answer beyond "this is stupid". Hence, the sillier an argument is, the lower my threshold is for answering it but you still have to answer it in some way. If you can't, then sadly for me and for you, you shouldn't win. Dropped arguments are not automatically true—you still need to tell me why drops matter and do the analysis and warranting for me to buy it.
Clarity > speed: Speed is the number of arguments on my flow, not your words per minute. You get one clear and after that I’ll only flow what I can with very little sympathy for what I don’t catch. I flow every event except for WSD on paper, so keep that in mind when you think about how much I'll actually write down.
I don’t read card texts and when I do, it’s either a few pieces of evidence in a super close debate or all the evidence in a debate where no one did any work for me. This means it’s important you control the spin of evidence, flush out warrants and do comparisons. I tend to think quality over quantity for evidence—smart analytics can beat bad cards and you should call out bad evidence.
Write my RFD and resolve important questions—I take the path of least resistance when making decisions. Good final speakers will make voting issues clear through framing, judge instruction, filtering comparison through nexus questions and organizing responses to their opponents. When I evaluate a round, I generally look to the biggest points of clash and impact comparison first, and filter everything through that.
Nuance tends to win rounds in front of me. The more specific you are with your analysis and the scenario you give me, the more likely I am to vote for you.
Presumption can be convincing, and I tend to think that terminal defense can tip a debate.
Tag team is ok but I’ll only flow the person who’s supposed to be speaking.
Be nice. Have fun. Treat your partner and your opponents with respect. It's nice to be important, but it's even more important to be nice
Policy, Progressive LD
Debate is a game. Whether it should mean anything else is up for debate. Fairness is an internal link (stuff like fairness is important to maintain a particular kind of debate), and I think I’m usually better for debates that pit two models of debate and their educational benefits against each other. TVAs are sometimes very useful and sometimes not necessary.
I find that I tend to vote for the side that most directly engages the other.
I err slightly (55-45) towards reasonability, but the more "what on earth" an aff is, the more persuaded I am by T. I don’t really think good affirmatives on a topic have to fall under one definition, but one random person defining a word in a completely different context is not a "definition".
No RVIs please and thank you.
LD: I'm pretty skeptical of the Nebel ev (and the argument as a whole).
Don’t just word vomit your theory blocks. If I miss half your standards I’m not going to think that it’s a reason to reject. Most theory debates end at reject the argument, rejecting the team is a very steep uphill battle.
I’m not a fan of "new affs bad", disclosure theory (btw disclosure is still important!), and the like. As long as a reasonable attempt has been made to disclose (this does not necessarily mean the wiki) then I think disclosure theory has very little merit. If someone doesn't know what the wiki is, running disclosure theory is an auto-25. Friv theory will make me put my pen down. I don’t care what event it is.
I tend to think condo is good, but this becomes a sliding scale the more conditional options end up in the 1NC.
-Not a fan of whatever """theory""" is in LD. Policy oriented theory (condo, cp theory, perm theory and the like) is ok.
-I understand the proliferation of RVIs in LD and find it ridiculous that this is due to the proliferation of garbo theory args because here RVIs just boil down to "this is stupid, 1AR time skew is bad, vote for me". I am very persuaded by reasonability in these debates.
I would say my K knowledge is average overall but quite low on authors who argue that language has no meaning, everything is meaningless, or rely on convoluted metaphors. More of my reading nowadays is focused on questions of race, colonialism and capitalism but from a sociological perspective. Ask before round for your specific literature base if necessary.
I like Ks that are applied specifically to the aff, not just a broad theory of understanding the status quo or “the topic sucks”/“fiat sucks”. The best K debates spin convincing stories by filtering the action of the affirmative through their literature base into a convincing story that doesn't rely heavily on jargon.
I think mitigating harm is a good thing. Take that how you will
I think a team can win metalevel framing questions and still lose technical concessions
Please just be honest about how long your overview is, although if it's more than 2 minutes I would suggest reevaluating it later.
The ROB is only a question of impact calculus. Framework debates matter surprisingly little if each side puts up a fight.
I have very little experience with K v. K debates, but my default is that the affirmative gets a perm. Perm theory, like most theory, tends to annoy me when it’s done poorly.
I dig. Impact/link turns (within reason) are always welcome. Dedev will get a slight chuckle from me.
Topic literature is the best indication of what CPs are competitive. You should have solvency evidence in the 1NC.
Case debate please and thank you.
For K Affs:
I tend to think the affirmative should have a direct relationship to the topic (kudos for creativity), a stable advocacy/action in the 1AC (i.e: not generated after hearing the 1NC) and a robust framework response. I tend to dislike when the framework response relies on analogies or comparisons to policing or roleplaying arguments.
I’m not going to make presumption arguments for the neg, but I might raise my eyebrows at solvency claims. Both sides should take advantage of that
-Phil args will take more explanation in front of me. Assume 0 knowledge and slight distaste of Kant, Hobbes, and the like.
PF, Traditional LD
Evidence quality matters. That includes source, dates, including the full text of the evidence, etc. I realize traditional LD (and the PF debates I’ve seen) don’t particularly reward evidence disclosure, but that shouldn’t be an excuse to engage in dubious practices (making up evidence, clipping, mis-citing evidence) for the sake of winning. If I catch you doing so I will auto-drop you, since this is academic dishonesty.
I get irritated when the last speeches devolve into overviews. Even if you're outlining voter issues for me, you should be filtering them through nexus questions and explaining why I prefer your side or why your value/vc is better AND responding to your opponent's arguments in a coherent way. I should be able to trace a point A to point B in your scenario.
WSD + Parli
I can pick a winner, but things related to parliamentary procedure are a little weird to me sometimes. Please don’t go over time—if I’m telling you that time is up (and I don’t call time until you’ve gone more than :10 over) please just stop. If you keep disregarding this, I'll just stop flowing when you hit 8 minutes with very little sympathy.
I generally tend to gravitate away from grandstanding approaches, particularly if they fail to give substantive responses.
WACFL's insistence on non-disclosure is silly and you'll hear me say so. I'll usually give a line or two of feedback in these cases, but feel free to track me down to ask for more extensive feedback later.
I am much more tolerant of tomfoolery (spreading, progressive cases) than most, but only if both teams are open to doing so.
Feel free to drop all the habits you've picked up for debating in front of parent judges. Underviews are not necessary.
For circuit tournaments I start at a 28.5 and move up/down depending on the division. For WACFL non-policy, speaker points start a point lower (27-27.5). For WACFL policy, they start a half point lower (28-28.5).
I have a pretty terrible poker face and you 100% should use that to your advantage.
I get really peeved when debaters give silly answers during cross x. Just answer the question.
I don’t feel comfortable making a judgement on something that happened outside of the round.