Interesting Ballot Comments

These are all real comments I or fellow club members have received on ballots:

Note: I love all judges, community, parent, and alumni. We appreciate the time and thoughts they give us. Some of these are just kind of funny.

"Great job! You were horrible!"
Also known as the self-contradictory ballot that makes you wonder if ballot check forced the judge to say something positive about your speech. My favorite was, "Your characterization was weak and not very believable. Drama was questionable and overdone." with the only other comment on the ballot being, "outstanding!" in peculiarly different handwriting next to Characterization. Um...what?

"I didn't know what I was doing so I voted on who spoke slower."
Not even who was clearer, more organized, or just a better speaker in general (although I've gotten those ballots, too). Who. spoke. slower. And in case you were wondering, no, it was not in their Judging Philosophy.

"You agreed to your opponent's value. And since you proved you could achieve both your value and their's much better than they could through your side of the resolution, you proved their value was highest. Since they won the Value Debate, and this is LD Value Debate, they win."
All the LDer's go *quadruple super facepalm*

"Your opponent was more assertive. I'm voting for them."
First off, they were downright rude. Second, they were wrong. Gr. Gr. Gr.

"You were a bit unmemorized and didn't seem to have it all together.  You stumbled over your words a bit. I loved it! It made you seem very authentic, like we were having a conversation!"
This judge gave me first place. She wasn't completely off her rocker, because I got a second and another first from the other judges. But I found this comment quite funny.

"Don't memorize your speech. It makes you seem unauthentic and robotic. Instead, have a general idea of what you're going to say under three main points and then wing it."
Wing it. This wasn't my ballot, it was a friend's. But you can imagine their confusion when they received this ballot in a platform. Lol.

"You hit the time at exactly six minutes. Be careful. You didn't go overtime, but I was really scared you were going to."

"You should paint your fingernails red to match the part of your speech where there's, 'blood on your hands'."
Actually some legit DI advice.

"You look great!!!"
Next to 'appearance' from a male judge. I'm not the only one who thinks this a bit creepy, right?

"Don't forget your hose."
I was wearing hose.

"You two would make a cute couple."
Thanks for shipping, judge, but I don't really want to date my debate opponent.

"Don't use a road map. This is Mars Hill, not Persuasive."
But...but...but my training! (I wasn't the only one to receive this kind of ballot, either.)

"You both should be lawyers."
This one's actually a really nice compliment, if you think about it.

"You should blink more often."
This was given to a friend of mine. I never noticed their blinking habits until then.

"You remind me of a TV preacher, in a good way."

~Kylie~

Losing (or Winning) Because of a Technicality.

I don't know about you, but the first time I broke I was super excited. Except for when I read my ballots.

I was number eight out of the eight people who broke, but considering it was only my second tournie, I was elated.

Then the ballots came in. It was Storytelling (anybody remember that...a long long time ago in a galaxy far away..Naboo was under an attack...you know, last season?) and I forgot to cite my source in finals.

YES I DID THAT. *horrified face*

And not just in finals every single prelim round, too.

To be fair to my little newbie self, I didn't even know it was a rule, I must have skimmed through it on the website. But I still want to go back and bop fourteen-year-old me on the head and remind her to read the rules properly and practice in club, for goodness's sake.

Some of you think I might be being a little overdramatic about this. However, that medal could have been a trophy.

But, you know what? My coach was hugging me. My teammates were patting me on the back. I was beaming.

So can we please all go back to when we were all novices and we were over the moon just to get a certificate and a handshake? I think that kind of gratitude is awesome. It was that little push that made me want to work harder, to break again, to go to NITOC, to actually do my homework. Which my fellow used-to-be-novices turned student coaches and I are now shelling out.

Sometimes it's the little victories, like not feeling like crumpling to the floor while being cross-exed or never once saying "um" during your limited prep round. Those things can turn an 'I would like to cry now' day into an 'I can do this' day. If you let them.

Now, what about winning because of a technicality?

Sometimes in debate your opponent, or maybe another person in your speech room, does something a bit absent-minded. Maybe they have a definition that actually supports your case better or they say something slightly offensive about a certain minority group (like forgetting to use people-first language or a controversial term for illegal immigrants). These aren't these are rules-based technicalities like my source citing mistake. But they are still pretty "technical" mistakes, the latter more than the former.

Personally, this is my least favorite way to win. Of course, I still prefer to win (>;P), but think about how much you hate to lose based on these sorts of things. If your opponent has great points, better logic, more applicable examples, and a reigning value and you beat them based on a hole-y def —unless it's painfully obvious and case-destroying, naturally—or iffy wording, then it kind of feels like to me like I didn't really beat them. Same thing in a speech round.

Sometimes you get backed into a corner in debate and you get tempted to pull something technical-ish to save yourself. You want to nail them a logical fallacy of which they barely committed or didn't at all.

Do not be that person.

Don't be the person that gets complained about because you accused your opponent of doing things they didn't do.

Instead focus on values, on arguments, on logic, on everything in between. Just don't go below the belt.

But if they ARE committing a fallacy, nail 'em. There is no better, clearer way to win a round. Which is why it burns when you didn't commit one and somebody says you did.

Once I was debating and I basically said "How my opponent's value and criterion links to the resolution is very unclear. Here's why mine are better..." This is a commonly used argument in value debate. Always, always, always give a value link of some sort.

She came back by claiming I had used the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Which is the logical fallacy of personally attacking someone instead of their case. She argued I had attacked her ability to be clear instead of the clarity of the argument itself.

I'm going to act like a I two year old here and say: "I totally did not!"

Don't worry, I didn't say that in the round.

Here's the thing, if you feel like you're backed into a corner and there's nothing you can do:
1. Fight to the death respectfully and logically.
2. Keep your flow and brief the case.
3. Know that you were debating a talented competitor, tell them you think so after the round, and use the experience to get better.

~Kylie~