[eDebate] Alex Acosta judging profile you have the power to strike me!

[FijiPapabear at aol.com]

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 
uniqueness evidence. 

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 
team. 

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 
work. 

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 
flow first. 

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: 
average 24-26 
Good- 26.5-28 
Excellent 28.5-29.5 
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...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070313/8dad0c7c/attachment.html