Judging Philosophy
Danielle Wiese
drwiese
Thu Oct 26 22:47:38 CDT 2000
I don't believe that any judging can be completely objective, but I do
take contest with the idea of "arbitrary." I want to know who wrote
the evidence, or the quotation that is being presented: in other
words, The New YorkTimes quoting President Clinton... ALthough if the
ONLY text being read was from Clinton, then I would be just as happy
hearing President Clinton '00 with the remainder of the citation left
unread on the block.
I recognize that people mess up, and sometimes it is hard to "find"
the qualifications of evidence. I'd never yell at someone during a
speech or vote against them or anything, and I try to recognize
effort in this area...But what I am striving for
is a recognition that simply because something is written in a "source"
does not make it fact. The qualifications of the source are important
for comparing claims and reasoning.
In general , I suspect that the determination of speaker points is
extremely subjective, what is my "25" maybe someone else's "23" etc...
But I have attempted to identify characteristics that I think are
representative of quality speaking skills. My submission of this
information to the list was an attempt to give
all those folks who might like me judging the FYI that those who are
willing to engage in this project with me, will be rewarded in speaker
points.
I hope this helps to clarify my position on this topic.
Danielle
On Thu, 26 Oct
2000, Ken D wrote:
>
>
> Again... arbitrary standard. If I say Smith in 2000 and the SMith is a
> staff writer but the card is quoting clintons speech, does the cite actually
> attribute the source? I jsut don't get it. We read such cruddy citations
> anyway, you hear them at 325 words a minute... how can the mere lack of
> qualifications result in lower speaks? Isn't that an argument to be made by
> the other team?
>
> Also... what about including the journal it was written in... what abotu the
> page number... why arent those things importnat too (ok Ill give you page
> number).
>
> Debaters spend so much time gathering the other teams cards during speeches
> now, they can check for themselves.
>
> ALSO... I mean to say that fully qualified cards that are highlighted down
> to 2 sentences are better than full paragraphs is also an arbitrary
> standard. I mean come on Danielle, isnt what your striving for quality
> debate?
>
> many debate practices are for the game..whatever happened to the "thumb
> test"
>
> Ken D.
> ESU
> "You know Ken, this judge was telling me that I sounded alot faster than I
> was because I didn't get many cards out, then it dawned on him, we were
> reading long cards!"
> - Phil Samuels
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Danielle Wiese <drwiese at ilstu.edu>
> >To: Glenn Kuper <gkuper at ups.edu>
> >CC: Jeff Parcher <parcherj at mindspring.com>, Joshua Hoe <ifjxh at HOTMAIL.COM>,
> > lacyjp at whitman.edu, eDebate at ndtceda.com
> >Subject: Re: Judging Philosophy
> >Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:14:00 -0500 (CDT)
> >
> >The failure to provide "full citations," meaning the author and
> >qualifications OR identifying if "BBC" means the BBC or a re-broadcast
> >results in significantly lower speaker points when I am judging.
> >
> >On Thu,
> >26 Oct 2000, Glenn Kuper wrote:
> >
> > > I am curious if judges would have a problem if the speaker read "Africa
> > > News" and then had the full citation available if asked by the judge or
> > > opponents? If not, how is that any different then reading Smith in
> >2000?
> > > it's not like anyone can make any judgement of the quality of a source
> >by
> > > hearing the last name.
> > >
> > > Kuper
> > >
> > >
> > > At 02:37 PM 10/26/2000 -0400, Jeff Parcher wrote:
> > > >I think Josh's position is ludicrous. The only reason I listen to
> >Africa
> > > >News evidence is that on a VERY rare occaision there are actually AN
> >staff
> > > >writers. Frankly, I think I'm being lenient since it ought to be the
> >team's
> > > >obligation to indicate when it's a staff writer and when it's another
> > > >newspaper.
> > > >
> > > >How the hell is a judge or team supposed to evaluate "BBC world
> >monitor"
> > > >when the source could be anything from a government official to the
> >Hamas
> > > >Web Page to a local radion station? Shouldn't the other side at least
> >have
> > > >chance to question the source?
> > > >
> > > >The idea that FNS qualifies as a cite is about as persuasive to me as
> >the
> > > >notion that "newspaper" or "georgetown library" or "the internet"
> >counts as
> > > >a cite.
> > > >
> > > >How about if we just allow teams to say "internet in 1999" followed by
> >a
> > > >full web address. Does that count as a cite Josh?
> > > >
> > > >I am rapidly moving toward the position of enforcing citation rules
> > > >unilaterally, regardless of whether other teams make the argument.
> >We've
> > > >gotten very sloppy as a community on this question. On several
> >occaisions
> > > >this year, I have been unable to track down sources because of
> >inadequate or
> > > >inaccurate citation.
> > > >
> > > >JP
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Joshua Hoe" <ifjxh at hotmail.com>
> > > >To: <lacyjp at whitman.edu>; <eDebate at ndtceda.com>
> > > >Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 2:12 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: Judging Philosophy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> That is silly JP....Africa News is a citation, maybe not as qualified
> >a
> > > >> citation as you would like but it seems silly to say that the news
> >agency
> > > >> collecting most african papers and wire reports from Africa is not a
> > > >> citation. Federal News Service is a citation just not a complete one
> >and
> > > >it
> > > >> is silly to remove the clearinghouse cite for all congressional
> >testimony
> > > >> from the realm of consideration. Finally, the BBC is perhaps the
> >most
> > > >> comprehensive collector of international news in the world and wire
> > > >service
> > > >> stories are frequently factually accurate as well as not published by
> >what
> > > >> you would seem to think is a qualified source. This just seems
> >entirely
> > > >> arbitrary, if your argument is that citations ought be more complete
> >I
> > > >agree
> > > >> with you. If your argument is that the primary means of getting
> >timely
> > > >> information on a continent western sources will admit they dont cover
> >well
> > > >> if at all should be excised from consideration I have to
> >wholeheartedly
> > > >> disagree with you.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Josh
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Joshua B. Hoe
> > > >> University of North Texas
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >From: JP Lacy <lacyjp at whitman.edu>
> > > >> >To: eDebate at ndtceda.com
> > > >> >Subject: Judging Philosophy
> > > >> >Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >One small update:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"Africa News" isn't a cite. Neither is "BBC" or "FNS." You might as
> >well
> > > >> >be blindly asserting yourself.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >--JP Lacy
> > > >> >lacyjp at whitman.edu
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> >_________________________________________________________________________
> > > >> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> >http://www.hotmail.com.
> > > >>
> > > >> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> > > >> http://profiles.msn.com.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Glenn Kuper, Ph.D.
> > > Visiting Assistant Professor
> > > Director of Forensics
> > > University of Puget Sound
> > > 1500 North Warner
> > > Tacoma, WA 98416
> > > (253) 879-3272
> > > http://www.ups.edu/cta/gkuper.htm
> > > http://www.ups.edu/cta/Debate.htm
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
>
More information about the Mailman
mailing list