Masked Midnight wrote:
Bryan, I was referring to NCFCA's style more predominantly. If we tell an NCFCA parent that they don't have the 'authority' to do something, it can come across...as not intended.
I've had judges who practically said on the ballot, "Don't tell me what I can't do." And voted against the other team on that.
I've had the same reaction in the NCFCA. That why you phrase it as more "this is what good debate is, you should vote to support good debate." One thing that often gets missed is that a good argument in front of a flow judge is often a good argument in front of a lay judge. Most people intuitively understand what good debate it, its just that a flow judge understands *why* its good debate. So phrasing might be slightly different, but the essence of the argument is the same. That's what I'm more getting at, Razi, that you should make the same argument in front of every kind of judge (with some exceptions, extinction and Ks for example), but know how to phrase them differently.
Mixing burdens in front of any kind of judge is bad. Even a lay judge can tell that, even if they don't know why.
EDIT: One of my coaches' favorite things to talk about was a study analyzing the judging decisions of lay versus flow judges. They found that, assuming the round was at a pace everyone could understand, lay and flow judges agreed something like 85-90% of the time. People know what good debate looks like, but phrasing may have to change for different judges. Arguments themselves don't.