[eDebate] Maybe judges should intervene

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Tue Mar 6 21:43:59 CST 2007

I agree with Josh. And I am not switching my position, just raising an issue
that concerns me, even when I judge:

What happens when our political views conflate with an adjudication of the
quality of evidence.

Let me give an example. I am personally highly, extremely, sceptical of claims
that humans are the current cause of the global warming trend (I am a sunspot
cycle causation kind of guy). So, whe X debater reads evidence from the
Sacremento Bee saying "it has been scientifically established and over 1,000
scientists around the world agree that humans are the principle casue of gloabl
warming;" and Y debater reads a card from the head of the Sorbonne's climitology
institute who says, "bullshit, its the solar winds", I will tend to prefer the
French expert. I have made a judgment call based on my bias.

Now is this intervention--yes, it is established, and I think inarguable that
the judges "judgement" inevitably is the result of some level of intervention.
Get over it lil' debate kids. That is the result of ANY judgment by a human
being on non-mathmetical/symbolic debates (even those are open to
interpretation sometimes).

The ultimate question is, is this interventio JUSTIFIABLE?

It is something that I have struggled with and would love to have input from
other judges.


More information about the Mailman mailing list