[eDebate] Judging Philosophy clarification

Foy, John A. jfoy
Wed Mar 8 16:28:53 CST 2006

Hey everybody, I just was looking over the judging philosophy I sent in for CEDA nats and realized it left some stuff out.  Here are some additional thoughts.  Email me if you have any questions!
John Foy
I just wanted to clarify a couple of things that I noticed I missed in my judging philosophy.  This is going to be kind of a rant because I feel very strongly about some of the kinds of arguments I see made in rounds.  Maybe I'm kind of a dinosaur, or maybe debate just isn't moving fast enough, but I truly think that things were different back in the day or are getting better/worse.


My main concern is the relationship that debaters seem to have to the issues that they debate.  Now I like a good kritik or politics debate as much as the next judge, but I have to wonder why we talk about these issues the way we do.  Uniqueness debates are especially problematic in this way.


I'm also puzzled (and at times hurt or offended) by perm debates.  C'mon people!  This isn't rocket science!  I know that community standards were/are changing, but that's no reason for this sort of rhetoric in rounds.


I also have a real bone to pick with the whole direction of the activity in the last 3 years to a decade.  I just don't feel like debate reflects the values and skills it once reflected and this upsets and scares me.  How can we expect administrators and our university communities to support what we do when it so very much like what they do, yet so very different.  Most basic public speaking students would be puzzled and/or love policy debate.  I find this very troubling.


Let me say that I love a good PIC strategy (especially consult) but I hate non-textual competition.  


Last, I just want everyone who debates in front of me to have fun (within limits), while still taking into account the things I have said up above.  Good luck and good night.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060308/33313428/attachment.html 

More information about the Mailman mailing list