[eDebate] My New Debating Philosophy
Rob G. Egewush
Wed Sep 25 16:06:20 CDT 2002
I figured since all these judges were announcing their judging
philosophies, why shouldn't debaters announce their debating
So here's mine.
I'm tired of all these wacky kritik debaters who are taking over the
activity. Good old policy making is not even in some rounds! What kind
of bullshit is that? I mean, come on, its POLICY debate. Need I say
more? And I'm totally with the judges that have been posting the last
few days: there is an enormous left-leaning balance in the judging pool,
which makes it impossible for a fair exchange of ideas to happen. These
judges out there *refuse* to vote for policy arguments. I'd say fully
4/5 of the judges will not even consider a politics disad or a real
advantage scenario. I base that on my experience from the last two
years when I could never win with those arguments. And whats worse is
that they're such horrible arguments. I mean, I felt that I was
overcovering these "kritiks" by putting 3 or 4 arguments on them. I had
my perm, my no alternative arg, my non-unique, and my wrong forum. What
more do I need to beat such shit arguments? But my judges all were so
closed minded that they refused to even consider my arguments.
So, here is my debating philosophy. If I hit a kritik team, i will look
at the judge and do 1 of 2 things. If the judge a fair judge, like Jay
or Jake or Duane, then I'll debate and win with my args described above.
If the judge isn't fair (ie, they feel that kritiks are arguments worth
even half a shit) then I'm going to take the ballot away from the judge,
fill it out and turn it in myself. After all, they can't object because
they reject rules and fairness. If they want anarchy, I'll give them
In the name of free and open debate
Get Your Free Email For Life At http://www.raiders.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman