Skip header content and main navigation Binghamton University, State University of New York - Patrick
Banner Brandon Evans Brittney Bleyle Trevor Reddick Phillip George Sonya Robinson Maneo Choudhury Daniel Friedman Joe Leeson-Schatz Anna Pinchuk Masakazu Kurihara Joshua Frumkin

Binghamton Speech & Debate

Armands Revelins

Armands Revelins
General Information
Name: Armands Revelins
Affiliation: Binghamton University
Join Time: April 11, 2013 at 12:55PM EST
Send Message: You must Create an Account and Log-In to message users.
Debating Statistics
Wins: 0 (0 are Byes)
Losses: 0 (0 are Forfeits)
Average Points (Out of 30): 0 (0 total)
*Opponent Wins: 0
*Opponent Points: 0
Judging Statistics
Total Rounds Judged: 0
Average Points Given (Out of 30): 0
Voted Proposition In: N/A
Voted Opposition In: N/A
Average Length of Notes (Characters): 0 (0 total)
Matches
Current: None
Past:

Binghamton University's 1st Annual Online Debate Tournament

Show

*Does not count opponents in bye or forfeit rounds.

Other
About Me: Not Available
Judge Philosophy: I debated policy debate for four years in high school and four years in college. Any kind of argument is fine by me : I wait to see how debaters respond to what happens in the round and try not to import any predispositions concerning the default way that I should evaluate things.

Various kinds of challenges to the resolution and norms of the community are fine by me.

I'm also fine with kritiks, and ran them often in high school/college. I studied philosophy in graduate school.

Counterplans can take various forms: bring it on.

Topicality debates: I will evaluate them just like anything else, but 2AC's on this tend to be a rapid succession of theory and debates on this can get muddled. Still, if a negative thinks an aff is not topical it is the negative's right to go 'all in' on such an argument. I don't prefer voting on t but do what you gotta do....

I debated policy advantage/da/impact debates almost as often as kritiks. Any politics link and link turn debates need to be laid out pretty clearly for me - mind your jargon please. The same goes for impact scenarios: who, what, against what country, etc.

It is important that you should provide a warrant for any claim that you want to advance in final rebuttals for my consideration towards a decision. For any asserted advocacy or test of competition, the plan text, permutation, etc needs to be clearly articulated in the round and written down so that it can be evaluated. For any card that you want me to read in last rebuttals, you should be telling me what I will find when I read that card and why it matters for the debate. I won't sift through a series of cards if you have just mentioned them/rattled off the citations without making use of them.

At the end of any round, I will vote for one team over the other and indicate this with my written ballot. This will be the case for any debate round that I can presently imagine.

That is all I can think of. Feel free to ask me more questions in person.
Connect with Binghamton:
Twitter icon links to Binghamton University's Twitter page YouTube icon links to Binghamton University's YouTube page Facebook icon links to Binghamton University's Facebook page Pinterest icon links to Binghamton University's Pinterest page

Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:

PHP MySQL SUIT