Suri,+Sohela

Submitted on Wednesday, August 20, 2014 - 12:00pm Submitted by anonymous user: [35.20.110.61] Submitted values are:

Judge's Name: Suri, Sohela High School Graduation Date: 2014 Judge's e-mail: sohsur@yahoo.com Experience: - High School debater - College debater - Occasionally Judge Rounds Judged this topic: 35 Judge Paradigm: Policymaker Rate of Delivery: 5 Fast Quantity of Arguments: 3 A moderate number Topicality: 3 Moderately Counterplans: 1 acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 1 acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 1 acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 1 acceptable Kritik arguments: 1 acceptable Overall judging paradigm: In all honesty, as a 1A, I usually have a good idea of my decision by the 2NR since the 2AR hasn't affected me much in the past, BUT I think the best debates that I've judged have come down to the 2NR/2AR. Have some kickass impact calc to get me to change my mind in the 2AR/2NR if you think things are going badly for you, because sometimes, the 1AR is so epic that I think you're good and my job is done, or vice versa and it sucks and the neg just kind of just wins; however, some great impact calc can change that.

New cards are cool anywhere between the 1AC, obviously, and the 2AR; however, no new arguments after the 1AR, but better link cards or evidence or anything like that is all good. Just the 2AR and 2NR can't have anything new, argument-wise, but other than that it's fair game as long as there are no new arguments.

Extend your evidence well and reiterate warrants, or I won't extend it or give it any weight; however, if something was totally dropped just dry/shadow extend it, so just be like "extend the cupcake monster advantage and give us full weight on it, since they dropped it."

Also, I'm really weird, I actually love T, IF the case isn't topical or you're a kick ass T debater; if it is topical, I would probably only vote on it if T were dropped or you're an amazing T debater and can convince me that the aff is not predictable or reasonably topical.

If you're going to run a K, Explain it well because, frankly, I will never vote on something that I don’t understand, because if I don't understand it, and your opponent doesn't understand it, that kills clash, fairness, argumentation, topic specific education & education in general, and it probably leads to nuclear war & extinction somehow, so you're basically giving me a moral imperative not to vote for you. So make sure everyone understand what you're running if something that's complex. P.S. If you alt is reject the aff, want to run a Cap K with a stupid alt, want to run Zizek or want to run something morally repugnant, then please, for everyone's sake, refrain.

Moreover, don't drop the important things.

I also really love overviews. Tell me how to vote, who to vote for & how I should frame the round.

Furthermore, I like speed, but if you're bad at it, slur words and or mumble: just don't.

Additionally, if you don't understand it, I won't vote on it. Because, yes, I will probably understand your argument if it isn't mega complex, but you need to, otherwise you aren't getting any education out of the debate. If one partner understands better than the other fair enough, but yeah.

Also, I like numbers on cards, but it isn't a requirements, but it can be the difference between a 28.5 and 29, or something like that. Not saying that I'd lower your speaks, but it could raise them.

CX-wise, I don't like group discussion, but tag teaming is fine; I did it, and it's annoying when judges don't let you, so go for it. However, I don't like when people do the whole everyone is having a discussion thing, unless, of course, you're running discourse solves, then go for it. Don't be rude, as well, because if you are, you will know I think that it's excessive; because, as a debater near and dear to me says, "Gurl this is not America's Next Top Model, so calm yourself." So yeah, be nice and no group discussion. Ethics Statement: Agree