[eDebate] A new judging philosophy for Stephen Davis

stephen davis proudsavage
Thu Sep 28 13:24:22 CDT 2006


So it seems im in the midst of a paradigmatic shift as far as my judging is
concerned. my preferences for judgin debates have become polarized. i enjoy
an ultra technical disad or CP debate much more than a wishy washy middle of
the road K debate. Don't get me wrong, i do enjoy a well run Krytik but the
problem is that most of the K's that i see are not exactly well run. This
dosn't mean that i won't vote for the K just that id prolly prefer to see a
cheap-shot counterplan than a mediochre Krytik.

what i mean by polarized is that i still really like the crazy strat and
would rather see a team go all out in one direction or the other. i find
that im good for clash of civilization debates as im fairly split between
voting for the traditional style and the "weird" style. i find this
distinction particularly problematic but i can't figure  out another way to
characterize it.

its difficult to get my ballot with un-warranted theory args( i.e.
predictability is key to fairness which is key to education which is key to
fairness which is key to predictablity... etc. etc..) im more than happy to
pull the trigger on theory but like any other argument i can't do so without
warranted claims... nothing is a priori in my mind. i also tend to be
persuaded by reasonablity standards deployed by teams that are reasonably
topical.

i think anything( and i do mean anything) is permissible  just as long as it
can be defended, so please don't assume that some ridiculous strat will
garner a ballot just because its fun or funny...

all in all i have no desire to impose my ideals upon a descision, and
believe fairly strongly that this community belongs to the debaters and try
my damndest  to keep from imposing dogma upon it through my descision. oh
and one more thing... fast debate seems to excite me more thease days than a
debate whose content remains the same while the speed drops considerably. i
suppose that's also subject to change depending on the circumstance. fast or
slow, card reading is card reading, at least when its fast the rest of the
debate is chalk full of args. when it's slow theres only one or two ways for
each team to win and the rest of the debate becomes decidedly predictable.

so... pref me... i want to be a good judge for anyone i have the fortune to
see.

stephen davis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060928/5deceaff/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list