[eDebate] rulebreaking doesn't win a lot of debates and there will be no mass exodus

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Tue Jun 19 21:22:27 CDT 2007

First, an apology to Matt. I thought Matt posted something as a public slam
rather than a backchannel a few days ago, so, I apologize for responding
publicly. I like you man and I I have a lot of respect for you as a coach and
an academic.

That being said, and ofter four whole seconds of thought, I think the schism
already exists, just people don't want to acknowledge it. How so? Whith MPJ,
teams and programs are crating "mini-tournaments" in prelims already. I
sincerely doubt Ellis or Massey's teams will be choosing me as a critic any
time soon (which is sad given that I rarely if ever vote on T and have voted
for some wild stuff in my day). With MPJ, programs and teams now get to debate
what they want, with no real check fromt he community. The only conflict occurs
in the last few outrounds. The question becomes  who gets to choose their panel.
If The kritical team gets only two judges and the policy team gets three, then
it is pretty much a fait accompli.

I watched several rounds at the NDT. No, I really did, just to see the state of
the activity. My wife was with me and I am sure many of you saw my daughter
running around the tournament hotel. Suffice to say, I could predict the
outcome of a round about 90% of the time just by looking at the judging panel
and then listening to the 1AC. For example, I watched Bard do something akin to
amatuer night at the improv poetry and Nietzche praise-athon meeting in front of
two "standard" policy judges and a person I did not know. As predicted by myself
and the debaters for the other team before the round even started, it was a 2-1
against the performance piece. One more tick on the MPJ ranking system, one
minor change in Professor Larson's algorythm, and it would have easily been a
2-1 for Bard. The schism exists, it is just being ignored.


More information about the Mailman mailing list