[eDebate] Judging Philosophy Addendum

James C Thomas jct44
Wed Jan 10 17:10:25 CST 2007

I was planning on updating/posting about my judging philosophy too today,
but Joe beat me to it. He's always good at coming first.

I put it up on debateresults.com, not gonna post the whole thing here
because it's kind of long and it's pretty sour and mean and I'm kind of
ashamed of it but at least it's honest.

Here's a couple of highlights though:

<< Traditional debates about the topic with like solvency arguments,
counterplans, disads, etc. - these are the debates that I probably feel
the most comfortable judging right now because they?re at least pretty
objective and not all ridiculous. >>

<< I?ve literally given three RFDs in the past year that were ?I voted Aff
because I have no idea what any of this means. Period.? Now that I?ve made
that RFD on a panel in a room full of people I like and respect, I?m very
unafraid to do it lots more in the future if things don?t change. I love
this post from the listserve that the Vermont debate team has no problem
with it being publicly accessable for some reason: ?stuck in ny tonight. 
nick has the results packet.  quarters for nick
and hitch at unt, doubles at utd.  they got screwed at utd... james
thomas... story worth hearing.? Here?s a story worth hearing: I give the
most obvious nonverbals that I have no idea what?s going on for an hour
and a half and no one bothers to step back and explain shit.  >>

<< Here are some phrases that literally mean nothing to me: open up space,
resist, interrogate the ______, ?the Real,? rhizome, anything Baudrillard
has ever written, 80 percent of what Zizek has ever written. >>


More information about the Mailman mailing list