[eDebate] Alex Acosta judging profile you have the power to strike me!
FijiPapabear at aol.com
Tue Mar 13 21:01:50 CDT 2007
Welcome to my juding profile. I would like to say that if you cant handle
humor or crude humor this is not for you.
Without further ado.
If you are reading this I apologize for yall not getting one of your more
prefered judges or for being this far down in the bracket. I promise to perform
to you to the capability you expected me to judge.
Nah really I was just being a d-bag and look foward to juding this round no
matter how angry, disgruntled, disheveled, or sober I look.
So let me welcome to you to my judging profile:
My general parameter is more in lines with this, there are no rules to
debate, only a framework, the rules for how to win in that framework are up to the
debaters interpretations. Obviously the most compelling story will be the
one that I vote for.
As for specific arguments here are my defaults on them if I am not offered a
framework for in which to vote.
Disadvantages: I LOVE POLITICS AND SPENDING DEBATES. Really I was just
always way to lazy to cut them. I think disads generally provide great ways of
spinning clear impacts, and this makes it the most fun and easy to watch. I
think its great to counterplan out of link turns in the 2nc, great to counterplan
uniqueness, and do all sorts of sketchy stuff. I don't mind seeing the speed
on this debate I just hope that there is good comparative analysis on the
Topicality: It is a jurisdictional issue I tend to default back to this
before I look at issues of limits or abuse. I do think topicality is an issue of
competing interpretations and would like to see definition comparison and a
deep debate on the standards. I really do enjoy topicality debates. If you
spend time developing the arguments the same you do a disad you will go a long
way in convincing me of your commitment to this argument as more than a time
suck. If you are going for T in your last speech it behooves you to make that
the only part of your strategy unless it interacts with something else that
will allow you to generate offensive reasons to win the round. I will vote on
RVI's or Independent voters if they are offered by the affirmative for good
reasons or if they are dropped. I will vote on arguments on this flow before
anything else. Oh ya I do vote on potential abuse.
Performance: If you are doing a performance whether it is rap,dance, or
music just dont be terrible at it. Furthermore, this still needs to be framed in
a way that tells me how to frame the ballot. Tell me why you must impel me to
act or vote in your way.
Counterplans: It is good if they compete. It is good if they have a net
benifit. I am fine with consult or any other agent counterplans, I am however
though very convinced that theoretical objections to them can be very real and
valid. I have no problem with conditionality and generally default neg on
conditionality. Theoritical objections to counterplan can be reason to reject the
Critiques: I have acknowledged that floating pics are inveitable, and thus
will accept people pressing the alternative and objecting to it theoretically
where it is justified. I want to see specific link analysis from the case. A
clear explanation of why it is a critique and not a non-unique linear
disadvantage. Contradictions are bad, and although i am ok with conditonal and
multiple cp, I am not comfortable with a traditional performative contradiction,
and tend to think at the very least that I should reject the argument and the
team if the AFf can spin the story. I think the alternative debate really
needs to be explained especially if its a floating pic. Providing real life
redeployment arguments provide great real world scenarios of how your arguments
Theory: Good debates are great, block debates are bad. Nothing irritiates me
more than people reading blocks instead of actually engaging in clash. After
you have read your blocks impac them the way you would a disad or kritik or
topicality. Compel me to make a decision. I consider theory issues a prima
facia issue and will vote on them first. I will vote on any argument on this
Aff Conditionality: Any of it in the block through severence, intrinsicness,
or timeframe, is usually reason enough for me to reject a team. Of course if
it isnt impacted I wont vote for it. Again neg teams should debate here and
do the work on why this is bad.
Offensive Language: Its bad, and will result in your docking of points. As
to whether I will punish a team for it, is questionable. In an outround
potentially I could drop a team but not in a prelim. It would take a blatant
mishandling of it, but usually an apology should suffice. This should not deter you
from running this argument, but rather i want you to draw a direct impact
correlation to the debate round. Proof of impact.
Speaker Points: I will reward humor and refrences to pop culture, Big
Lebowski, EuroTrip,Florida State football, and anyone I debated with or coach.
Tasteful Nicole Richter and non tasteful Johnny Prieur jokes are welcome and
expected. This is really where someone who excels in cross examination can really
win an extra point, and that can mean the difference betweening clearing at
Tournament when you are 5-3 or 4-4.
My speaker point range is usually:
To get a 30 you would have to buy me a keg of at the very least Killians.
Any questions please ask: Fijipapabear at aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman