# data[].attributes.body
messy OA -- the feedback for style, strat and content was not well signposted and it was just quite confusing

# data[].attributes.body
the feedback was not really related to what happened in the debate but quite generic

# data[].attributes.body
An intertext judge during a prelim round, said something along the lines of “principle arguments will always outweigh practical arguments” and how “they were sneaky in trying to pull your leg here and there” without proper justification gave us the L despite how the round was a clear win given the fulfillment of a burden + lack of counterfactual on the other side

# data[].attributes.body
during an oral adjudication for a debate once, the judge didn’t really comment on the points and said that the other team won because they were louder (in actual fact they were just yelling their points) - when we asked for more feedback on the points they didn’t really respond

# data[].attributes.body
earlier on our adjucator used a whole lot of terms our team had no idea about (such as zero delta) and mostly told us what we kind of sucked rather than what to fix and how.

# data[].attributes.body
the adj kept saying something wasn’t responded to when we responded with proper signposting, and he didn’t explain why it was considered invalid or insufficient. once an adjudicator weighed a strawman that the other team made??

# data[].attributes.body
the oa was generic and talked about the debate, but didn't address our cases. flaws or contradictions that possibly made were not pointed out and the adjudicator didn't judge the debate based on clashes

# data[].attributes.body
the adj insisted that we lost our case cos she cld think of a better alternative case - and weighed that instead of our subs

# data[].attributes.body
a judge knew the other team personally (I think even personally coached them), and so the oral adjudication was quite informal and he said stuff like “guys we’ve been through this before”, so it felt a bit awkward but the adjudication wasn’t too bad

# data[].attributes.body
Erroneous identification of the burdens

-disregarded practical impacts

Sloppy explanation of case flaws

Focused on rhetoric instead of mechanization of arguments

# data[].attributes.body
adjudicator was biased towards the other team since he knew them personally

# data[].attributes.body
Not as in feedback wise, but during the course of the debate, the adjudicator just did not seem very interested, or that he was not listening. It felt rlly disrespectfult o both teams and I did not really get his OA afterwards...

# data[].attributes.body
the adjudicator entered the debate and made up mechanisms for the other team's arguments, which otherwise was mainly a bunch of assertions

# data[].attributes.body
barely any positive feedback

didn't credit both sides appropriately

messy OA

# data[].attributes.body
When the adjudicators sometimes mix up what the different people say and they give like messy OA

# data[].attributes.body
basically just a summary of each others cases, but never actually told us why the other side won and what they did better and how our shortcomings were mutually exclusive lol

# data[].attributes.body
They mostly ignored all of the content that we brought up in the debate, and treated everything we said as completely redundant, despite even getting confirmation from out coach that what we said would have been relevant even in the worst scenario.

Moreover, their reasons for supporting their decision were very inaccurate, and his comments seemed to be completely separated from the debate.

# data[].attributes.body
OA was vague, never gave actual constructive feedback and ignored material our team brought up

# data[].attributes.body
oa was premised on a fictitious case which the adjudicator made up instead of the actual content during the debate

# data[].attributes.body
our adjudicator told us that they gave the win to opp simply because they were more sneaky and knew how to pull at our legs and did not give us any concrete feedback

# data[].attributes.body
Firstly his explanation of how he prioritised our subs differently compared to how it was done during the debate then gave no proper elaboration on it and like his reasoning didnt make sense that at some point when he said that our mechanisms for speaker 3 wasnt brought up earlier in the debate but it was literally her weighing like it cant even come up earlier cause its the weighing like it didnt make sense and when we asked it wasnt even a proper explanation so it really confused both teams

# data[].attributes.body
the adjudicator nitpicked on small issues with the case and insisted we lost because of all of those little slip-ups

# data[].attributes.body
at an online tourney, a judge said that we lost the debate because we had insufficient illustration and needed to back our case up with more examples even though i gave quite a few like blacpanthers, pink saris- he told us that we should've used those exact two examples so we were rly questioning whether he full on zoned out during our speech

# data[].attributes.body
i've never had a judge that gave a necessarily bad oa and bad feedback, i've had some that didn't explain alot or very well, but it's usually cus of a lack of time. But i had this one judge that somehow knew the other team personally and he was talking to them informally through the debate. he would go like "guys we've been through this don't talk so loud during the debate" and they would laugh about it or smt. i was leading a team of my juniors in this comp when this happened and i could tell they were super confused (so was i)