[eDebate] Louisville 2006-7

Ede Warner ewarner
Mon Sep 18 14:13:36 CDT 2006


Hello all,
 
I have a couple of items to communicate before our first tournament at Georgia State this weekend.  First the important stuff.  My son Chris has a fall baseball game on Saturday, October 7 at noon here in Louisville.  If anyone who isn't judging during rounds 2 and 3 is interested in coming to watch the next Ivan Rodriquez in action, we will shuttle back to Louisville after round 1 and return by 3pm.
 
Second, below is a copy of the Louisville staff's, collective judging philosophy for 2006-7.  I will also attach it on http://debaterresults.com.  This season, our students will engage in a persuasion-centered model of debate that focuses on the importance of all three types of Aristotlian persuasive appeals:  pathos, ethos, and logos.  If teams are willing to have their speeches evaluated in all three categories, with winning a minimum of two out of three necessary to win the debate, we will engage in topical switch-side debating, making a persuasive argument to overrule or not overrule the case in the debate.  If they are unwilling to, we will engage in a stylistic criticism argument called "stylicality", a procedural argument similar to topicality but with regards to style.  Our students will ask during the first cross-examination what method the opposition wants to have the debate evaluated in and our advocacy choice will proceed from there.  
 
Our teams will be running different cases and each will fully participate in the case list system.
 
Finally, given our emphasis on persuasion and our honest attempt to bridge the gap between the critical and performance folks and the more contemporary policy folks, we will not engage in mutual preference judging, choosing to let the entire community here our students this year.  We will reserve the right to strike judges for the following: 1) open communication that they don't want to hear our students or feel they can't fairly evaluate our students; 2) unwillingness to engage or listen to our arguments; 3) feelings of alienation or hostility felt repeatedly by our students from the critic.  
 
 
Judging Philosophy Ede Warner, 16 years coaching experienceMotriyo Isles-Warner, 6 yrs.Tiffany Dillard, 5 yrs.Lindsey Bird, First year judgingGeorge Zubaty,  First year judging. Our default framework for evaluation of a debate is a persuasive-speaking model of policy debate.  We embrace the following method for evaluation of a policy debate:  we will make three judgments to decide a debate:  one for which team had the best ethos or ethical appeal (credibility) regarding the topic; one for which team had the best pathos appeal (emotional appeal) regarding the topic; one for which team had the best logos appeal (evidence and reasoning) regarding the topic. The evaluation standards for each category we default to are as follows:  ethos- the communication of one?s competence and character regarding the topic; pathos- identification of what emotions are being conveyed to audience and whether those emotions are best for policy making with regards to topical argument; and finally, logos- communication of whose evidence and reasoning are better. To summarize, at the end of the debate, these Louisville judges will make a decision for the team who wins at least 2 of the three evaluation categories.  Debaters are free to make persuasive arguments challenging either our default framework or the default standards for one or more of the three categories, but recognize that the judge must be able to access the arguments being made.  Louisville judges will take extensive notes, although not necessarily trained in ?flowing? and not necessarily trained in handling ?speed?.   We have all been judging debates in this model in preparation for this season.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060918/8fb155c7/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list