[eDebate] stephen davis' judging philo for the D8 qual only!!!(D8 or delete)

stephen davis proudsavage
Tue Feb 13 16:13:21 CST 2007


as the qualifyer is fastly appraching i felt it was important to disclose a
philo that accurately reflects how i will be evaluating the debates i watch.


round 1.

in this debate i will vote for the losing team, both teams however should do
their best to try to win as i m keenly aware when someone is trying to
lose(see  my debate career for ev on this question) and if someone loses on
purpose i will know it and since they won at losing will have to award the
ballot to the other team which i guess would be the rightful winner, i know
it sounds confusing now but it gets much worse.

round 2

in light of the arbitrarity of most decisions(especially in really close
debates where both teams lose and win on the flow) i will be simulating the
uneccisarily complex arbitrarity of this phenomenon by flippin 14 coins 6
times,  12 coins 7 times, 10 coins 8 times and 3 coins 13 times, thease
numbers will then be added up and the digits of that number will each be
divided by three giving me 8 numbers which will then be plugged into an
equation for determining the density of  dolimite in a vaccum(people always
talk about this vaccum stuff with regard to decsions and this is the only
way which it makes sense to me). the winner will be the team whose names,
when translated into digits and divided by the other teams names when
translated into digits comes closest to the number found by the above
process without going over. like price is right for annoyingly absurd
people.

rounds 3-4

in thease rounds i will only vote for people whose last names are hyphenated

rounds 5-6

in thease rounds i will only vote for people whose last names start with a
K(in the rare instance in which both teams have members whose last names
start with a K i will vote for the team whose arg most clearly  coincides
with the spelling of their last name, for example  Biz Kahn, or  bio
lansman-roos (wait that dosn't make sense)).

rounds 7 and 8

in these rounds ill most likely be flowing on post it notes(not the bigguns
but the really tiny ones you put in books to mark the pages) the goal will
be to use as many one word arguments as possible words like "turn" and
"perm" or even "no link" as it will be difficult to fit more than a few
syllables on each tiny piece of paper and there can be only one tiny peice
of paper per argument.


seriously folks, thease philos are silly, no one can really ever live up to
em and the representations we present of ourelves are always going to be far
less complex than we are. you all know me and some of you trust me, if you
trust that ill try my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as i can then
don't stike me and ill do just that. ive judged almost 70 rounds on this
topic and have voted for everything  from t on "the", to puppet rape bad. in
a critical round(not that i fully agree with the dangerous separation
between  critical debates and policy debates) i tend to evaluate the debate
more wholistically than i do in a policy throw down. i find that "straight
up" debates require less thought from me than a debate about the
"intertexual representations of intelectual commodities in the age of
bio-polical controll" or, whatever vacuous things pass for arguments thease
days. what that means is that the more complex the argument gets the more im
compelled to think and no ones thoughts are ever entirely objective.   i
like pics. don't always vote for them but think they are often ingeniusly
straegic and fun debates to watch. i like to be spoken to instead of spoken
at(some of you are really really good at this), you people  have been
dealing with my antics  for a  couple years now and its nice to know that
members of your comunity  have some clue about  what u might be thinking. my
non verbals are misleading, i try to avoid head shakes and nods and always
seem to dawn a look of perplexed disagreement, just means im paying
attention. i think it  would be a mistake to strike me, one thing that
judging has taught me is that i really don't care who wins, i enjoy learning
and i think having to evaluate debates is a good way for me to do that. most
of the debates ive  judged this year have been  between teams who i really
want to keep watching but will inevitably have to dissapoint  one of. ive
been accused of repping out before, not saying it isn't true, im hopelessly
flawed and seem to be getting more so as the arrow of time marches on, but
thats a shitty feeling(to be repped out upon and to be accused of repping
out) and i promise to do my best not to account for who is "suppose" to win
and try to figger out who did win, the district tourny is a particularly
hard place to do this but id like to think im up to the challenge. and one
last thing, don't fuckin yell at me after the decision( i did this a lot as
a debater, and am the first to admit that you look like an ass for it and
it's never worth anyones time or energy), im happy to answer questions about
how i would understand your arg  better and it seems that who-ever loses
always thinks they won(nature of the activity i guess.) if i didn't
understand why im suppose to vote for you, thats not my fault, its yours.

good luck to you all and i hope i get the oppertunity to see you debate, ill
do my best not to squander it.

heathen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070213/70084a4e/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list