Mon Dec 6 10:02:12 CST 2004
fwiw, confrontations between judges and disgruntled debaters is MUCH LESS
COMMON now than in 10-15 years ago. i remember some really big conflicts,
including physical intimidation, when i was debating (early 90's). i haven't
seen anything like that in a few years.
>===== Original Message From Charles Olney <olneyce at gmail.com> =====
>If I wasn't allowed to talk to teams after debates, I would be
>substantially *less* interested in judging.
>> If we wonder why there always seems to be a shortage of judges, we might
>> start with a firm examination of what a judge/critic gets him or herself
>> into. Now, judges not only have to render decisions, they must also
>> their logic.
>I keep reading this last sentence. I can't even comprehend how this
>could be a bad thing.
>"Now, Supreme Court justices not only have to render decisions, they
>must also explain their logic."
>Seems about right to me.
>Similarly, it would be similar to spending a semester in a class and
>receiving no comment apart from "pass" or "fail." Surely, you would
>prefer the professor communicate with the student about what has been
>done well and what could be improved. How else can one learn?
>Accountability is good. Dialogue is good.
>Violence is not good. The solution is to encourage people to resolve
>differences of opinion peacefully, not to ban communication.
>And the world may be long for you
>but he'll never belong to you
>But on a motorbike, when all the city lights blind your eyes
>Are you feeling better now?
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
More information about the Mailman