Collegiate Forensics and PKD info

Collegiate Forensics Blog I'm Joanna, a girl attending Ottawa University (Alpha Chapter of PiKappaDelta) on a Debate and Forensics Scholarship Current events: Inform, Prose, Impromtu, IPDA, Public Forum Debate

[linguisten]

metacommunicative trolling, academia style

[intensesuggestion]

why get a boyfriend when you can get a pack of really nice pens

[saintspeech]

What’s the weirdest thing a judge has written about you?

[gavelenvy]

“I expect to see you on Fox News in five years.”

[thatdebatechick]

I got “you seem shallow and superficial.” Wow, thanks for that little ray of sunshine!

[bad-debater]

“you’re too calm in CX”

“try to be less critical of their arguments”

[tokillapenguin-blog]

“Try not to laugh at your opponents.”

[longstorydontworry]

“Could you stand a little shorter?“  ????

[thatspeechkid]

“You should practice with a real knife”

[remorsefullywitty]

I like when your voice goes like this: ~~~~~~~

[urbsinpalude]

“Boom.”

[drabasp]

“Your case shouldn’t be philosophical” In LD

[debater-life]

“Everything else was a tie, but you won because your opponent sweats way to much.”

[hopepumpkin-deactivated20180113]

Not on a ballot but I got told by a coach at camp that if it was between two girls to give the win they would give it to the one in a skirt over the one in pants. And that it’s ok for guys to sweat in speech rounds but not girls.

[thespeechjudge-deactivated20191]

not weirdest, but favorite. “Katherine, there is no need to be going that fast in constructive. Especially this early in the morning…slow that shit down.”

[lesbianskyrim-deactivated201902]

“try saying the T word more quietly.” in oratory. the word was transgender, and this was his only comment.

[relatablydebate]

We were NEG: “even though you countered every aff point with evidence there was one thing in CX that didn’t hold up” (the one thing was never specified neither were we told whose cx it had been)

[bryoria]

“I can’t believe you managed to place third last tournament.”

[starfleetofficial]

“Good use of your nice long arms”

[pikappadeltaac]

Judge who was obviously a Policy judge: “Your opponent is right, you need to have more sources.” (comment on a ballet in Parli, which is a debate format in which you’re not allowed to have lots of sources, as it’s supposed to be mostly analytics, which I had explained in the round)

[eternally-soft]

so my coach said that he was going to force me to do extemp even though i hate it until i threatened to make all of my speeches promote communism and then he said i didn’t have to do extemp

[pikappadeltaac]

Delays

Round three at PKD is currently over an hour late.

[pikappadeltaac]

PKD Nationals 2016 is about to start

Round one of debate on day one starts in 5 minutes. Time for the fun to begin.

[net-benefits-deactivated2016031]

“Must’ve been Rob Layne”

[net-benefits-deactivated2016031]

Interpretation: My opponent can’t be a perfect 10/10

Violation: damn, girl

Standards: It’s unfair how hot you are; I’m too distracted to debate

Voters: I’ll drop the round for your number ;)

[old-commie-bacon]

Extempers.

[pikappadeltaac]

Gorlock Gala, Day 1:

So, the first two rounds of Public Forum have finished here at Webster. Parliament is in round 1. The other team from Ottawa was DQ'ed round one of PF because they were late. They were only late because the schedule was printed wrong. Meanwhile, my partner and I were almost DQ'ed round two for being late. We had to travel completely across campus, uphill, with me stuck in a wheelchair. The judge only allowed the round to happen because I was in a wheelchair.

[pikappadeltaac]

Update: Round 4 of Public Forum will almost certainly run late. The round is scheduled for 5:30. Current time is 5:23, and there are still no postings.

[pikappadeltaac]

Gorlock Gala, Day 1:

So, the first two rounds of Public Forum have finished here at Webster. Parliament is in round 1. The other team from Ottawa was DQ'ed round one of PF because they were late. They were only late because the schedule was printed wrong. Meanwhile, my partner and I were almost DQ'ed round two for being late. We had to travel completely across campus, uphill, with me stuck in a wheelchair. The judge only allowed the round to happen because I was in a wheelchair.

[hungoverjudge]

A question to ponder

In a rebuttal, a debater makes a claim which is clearly not supported by reality. The other debater does not make a response to it. The argument is then extended.

As a judge, can I use my own external knowledge to discredit this claim? Or am I forced to go only by what is on the flow?

[net-benefits-deactivated2016031]

Generally, I’d say IF the argument is important enough to determine the round, and if it’s not a horrible, offensive argument, then just go with the flow. The other debater should’ve answered it.

I say things that I know aren’t true in rounds, like “Econ collapse will lead to nuke war” or “turkey isn’t xenophobic.” Debate is more a game of strategy than some kind of truth contest, and judge intervention that does the work of answering arguments for debaters - work they should’ve done themselves - that doesn’t reward strategic decision making.

[thoughtsofapolicydebater]

Giving pep talks to novices

[eternally-soft]

Why do extemp when you could do literally anything else

[cspanjunkie-blog]

no im too sober for foreign policy questions

[pikappadeltaac]

Initial reaction/analysis of the Spring PF topic

“The obligation to aid those seeking asylum outweighs national security concerns.”

So far, my primary concern with this topic is how it’s phrased. It’s definitive. More to the point, to use an old Policy cliche, this is a zero-sum resolution, which is funny, because this is not a policy oriented topic. This is a value debate, considering the use of the words “obligation” and “outweighs.” However, this could potentially be twisted into a fact/preponderance of evidence debate, especially if the Con has their way. 

It seems to me that, if the Pro can get the judge to believe their round framework, then the topic is slightly skewed towards the Pro, but that advantage can only occur if the Pro can prove the “obligation.”

Likewise, the Con merely needs to disprove that obligation, and then prove that there is a threat to national security that could be worsened by providing asylum. 

[pikappadeltaac]

Additional thought my partner had: This topic is incredibly biased and gives major opportunity for a judge to assert their opinions via the ballot.

[pikappadeltaac]

Initial reaction/analysis of the Spring PF topic

"The obligation to aid those seeking asylum outweighs national security concerns."

So far, my primary concern with this topic is how it’s phrased. It’s definitive. More to the point, to use an old Policy cliche, this is a zero-sum resolution, which is funny, because this is not a policy oriented topic. This is a value debate, considering the use of the words “obligation” and “outweighs.” However, this could potentially be twisted into a fact/preponderance of evidence debate, especially if the Con has their way. 

It seems to me that, if the Pro can get the judge to believe their round framework, then the topic is slightly skewed towards the Pro, but that advantage can only occur if the Pro can prove the “obligation.”

Likewise, the Con merely needs to disprove that obligation, and then prove that there is a threat to national security that could be worsened by providing asylum.