Still need a case?

by **BritainKennedy** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:56 am

http://debate-central.ncpa.org/forum/vi ... 25#p164025 - Post the 1AC.

by **3rdcoastdebate** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:19 am

Perfect: being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish. There can be nothing wrong with a case, and a judge can vote against the aff, perfect, and concievable

by **BritainKennedy** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:58 pm

//There can be nothing wrong with a case, and a judge can vote against the aff, perfect, and concievable//

How so? Are you legitimately saying you can't ever lose against even a far superior debater without judge intervention?

by **BritainKennedy** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:46 pm

Just upload your aff to www.mediafire.com and post the link in that thread. I'll post cx then 1NC within 24 hours.

by **3rdcoastdebate** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:06 am

I am legitimatley saying that NOBODY can lose without judge intervention. If there's nobody to sign the ballot, nobody can win

by **BritainKennedy** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:05 am

3rdcoastdebate wrote:I am legitimatley saying that NOBODY can lose without judge intervention. If there's nobody to sign the ballot, nobody can win

A judge can JUDGE a debate round without intervening, you idiot.

by **3rdcoastdebate** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:12 am

I don't believe I am the idiot, what you say and what you mean are two different things. If the judge was not there to mediate, there would be no JUDGING.

by **BritainKennedy** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:18 am

My definition of intervention is a judge putting his own thoughts into the round, which is bad.

by **3rdcoastdebate** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:39 am

Princeton defines it as the act of intervening (as to mediate a dispute) It's really up to you to determine who is more credible

by **BritainKennedy** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:49 am

I'm not talking about the definition of intervening itself 3rdcoast... I'm talking about the phrase "Judge Intervention", it's a phrase debaters use to describe when a judge decides the round for themselves (with their own opinions, etc.) instead of what was presented in the round.

by **3rdcoastdebate** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:48 pm

Right. It's a phrase you use =) around here we tend to use "Debating the Judge". just a simple miscommunication

by **BritainKennedy** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:01 pm

Ah okay, I've never heard it phrased like that. I think JI is a bit more common nationally.

by **txag15** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:34 pm

I have always heard of it as the 1JR, or the first judge rebutal

by **Aimee231** » Thu May 20, 2010 3:20 am

hello

Still need a case?

Who is online