win/win and loss/loss
Mon Oct 19 01:16:48 CDT 1998
I agree with most of what Joe said, but I have a couple of minor comments.
Read on if you care, or feel free to delete...
From: Joe Zompetti <Zompetti at AOL.COM>
To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 12:42 AM
Subject: win/win and loss/loss
>this thread is particularly interesting to me since a couple of years ago a
>situation occurred where i was encouraged to give a double loss. The
>tournament before that, there was a double-win that occurred, which sort of
>set a precedent, i suppose, for this phenomena to exist. Having thought
>both of those instances at the time and quite extensively since, here are
>1. Some tournaments (i.e., the Dixie) have initiatied no double wins or
>double loss rules. If you think win/win or loss/loss are options, think
>at some tournaments.
I don't think that our tournament invite says this, although I can't confirm
this hour. It probably also does not say that:
1. The rounds will be indoors
2. The breaking teams will be those with the most, not the least wins
3. The assignment order for rounds with judge preference (which rounds
are more 'likely' to get A/A judges.
4. Who gets the bye
5. You must appear to debate in the assignment room, instead of
an alternative location.
These are omitted due to community norm. I think 1 win / 1 loss is also
a community norm, and thus does not (but can) be written on invitations.
I might suggest getting a tournament director to decide this question
before making it a central feature of my strategy.
>2. Despite the (seeming) compelling nature of this option for both
>and critics, instigating a win/win or a loss/loss wreaks havoc on a tab
>On the criminal procedure topic at the Louisville tournament, I was
>encouraged, in round 8, to give a loss/loss. I thought long and hard about
>this option, and personally wanted to embrace that option. However, I also
>knew that Ede Warner and his crew had already been working very hard to
>provide a smooth, efficient tournament, and the prospect of a loss/loss
>skewing the entire tournament results and frustrating the tab room beyond
>belief compelled me to think again and decide for a winner.
>Now, does this mean that there should never be localized resistance? No.
>However, for those of you out there thinking that a win/win or a loss/loss
>an embracement of localized resistance, consider the following:
>1. you're probably preaching to the choir. some, if not most, tab room
>operators are inclined toward the critical, praxis orientations, meaning
>ballot/advocacy won't actually make that big of a difference (at least a
>difference that overwhelms the frustrating circumstances that occur in a
>2. you're advocacy probably isn't going to change very many minds about
>kritik, either. Despite the win/win at West Georgia and the potential
>loss/loss at Louisville that year, there were no clear signals sent to the
>community. If anything, there was a backlash that resulted in tournament
>administrators "outlawing" such adjudicative practices.
or, making explicity their understanding that the proper result is 1 win and
loss. I suspect this rule operates at many tournaments that do NOT state it
on the invitation.
That's all - told you it wasn't much.
>3. take a position. this is what critical thinking and critical advocacy
>all about. if you can't defend your position, then maybe you're in the
>activity. no real change (even localized resistance) is going to occur
>you hold your ground and take a position.
>4. this doesn't imply, however, that you should take a position on the
>win/win or loss/loss basis. why? because those options aren't critical
>positions. While we only have a finite amount of time to discuss these
>complicated issues, the judge should still make a decision, and the
>should still be expected/required to defend a central position. If you
>disagree with this argument, then maybe the "wrong forum" advocates have a
>5. the win/win or loss/loss options are not unique, clever, nifty or
>Actually, such options are simple, albeit re-articulated, linguistic
>that serve the so-called "oppressive" structure of academic debate that
>of these kritiks dispute to begin with. In other words, the win/win or
>loss/loss does NOT address localized resistance or critique. Rather, they
>create new ways that the oppressed or minority perspectives get relegated
>structural concerns. The real problems of the real advocates for social
>change or resistance get glossed over in the win/win or loss/loss debates.
>Both the discursive as well as the material conditions of oppression simply
>get re-inscribed in new ways of thinking about competition (but
>it remains "competition"), meaning that the w/w or l/l doesn't actually
>overcome the initial assumptions of either the plan or the negative
>Just some thoughts to chew on...
More information about the Mailman