[eDebate] Judging Philosophy Addendum
Wed Jan 10 15:01:55 CST 2007
I've been thinking about doing this for a while, but for some reason hadn't decided to pull the trigger until today. I apologize in advance to those people at berkeley that may have to change things with their prefs.
I am going to start this off with a couple of meta-issues:
1) Many may accuse me of some sort of hypocrisy in regards to what I am about to say, given the things I used to do as a debater, but those of you that really know me already know that the WGLF wasn?t really me to begin with (although we were obviously dope).
2) I also realize that I am a relatively inexperienced second year judge, and that I may just be going through a phase.
I came into judging last year trying to be open to everything that anyone wanted to say. I believe that debate should be a ?big tent?, and that in general, we all should have space to do whatever it is that we think debate is. That being said, I am growing increasingly unhappy with the debates that I have been judging. Objectivity, although never entirely possible, has become harder and harder for me to stomach when I hear terrible baudrillard, deleuze, and ?performance? arguments in 40% of debates. Why do you all hate me and want to torture me? I nearly cried why I judged Wyoming versus Wake frosh last weekend, because it was just a sweet policy debate where people went fast and line by line. THERE WAS CLASH!! HOLY SHIT!
Too many teams misread me. Here?s a list of things to think about before you decide to prefer me in the future:
I do not have scanned copies of Zizek on my hard drive. I research the topic, and I can?t remember the last time I was cutting generic K cards. I have no clue why a rhizome matters. I also kind of think the stare decisis DA is totally stupid. Despite my Catholic schooling, I have really no clue what is going on in terms of the religious turn in K debates. I prefer when teams agree upon what debate should be, and if they don?t they should hash out their differences via some real carded arguments instead of self-referential theory arguments. Sometimes debaters never stop and realize that a substantial amount of what people say in debates really makes no sense and is only given meaning via the smoke and mirrors of the debate round; To me the best kind of strategic vision is when a debater makes all of that horse shit apparent. I just wish people would point out massive holes in people?s arguments, use their brain, not their blocks, and have fun while doing it.
Bottom line: I am really concerned with walking the line in terms of debate?s ideological divide. Therefore I still prefer that you do whatever it is that you do best, but you should consider yourself warned. I am increasingly growing less patient with the far reaches of the critical debate community, in addition to my previous aversions to those who want a death of the k altogether. How about some debate centrism for a change?
Also, I?ll answer questions about this if you just backchannel me.
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman