[eDebate] Judge philosophy (Martin Harris)
Wed Nov 7 18:34:39 CST 2007
the wiki for judge philosohies can be found here:
On 11/7/07, Martin Harris <mharris02 at drury.edu> wrote:
> Having been out of direct interaction with any team for a number of
> years, I wasn't exactly sure were these things were stored these days, so I
> thought I would just post it here (yeah, I am too lazy to look through the
> archives for links to databases, especially since pipermail doesn't seem to
> have a search function like the old system).
> While the following might read as a treatise on why you should strike me,
> its intention was really just meant to be brutally honest. As anyone who has
> ever had the misfortune to have had to coach me or debate with me can
> attest, most of it (especially my incompetencies) are probably spot on.
> First, my flow has always been remarkably poor at best. 5 years of
> inactivity in two person policy debate has not made that any better. Yes,
> you read that correctly, I have not judged anything but parli and college LD
> for the last 5 years. Both are flow activities, but, on balance, are
> significantly slower most of the time than your average NDT/CEDA round. I
> will attempt to keep up as much as possible, but I do occasionally get lost.
> This makes me judge rounds more wholistically then just you dropped the
> number 3 of the adv. II B subpoint, that is devastating for the following
> reasons. I consider myself an evaluator of argument. I look at the meaning
> of the arguments and attempt to interpret how they interplay. Some say this
> makes me interventionist. Ok, so I intervene.
> Second, I do not vote on what I don't understand. You will rarely ever (I
> have learned not to say never in philosophies) hear me say I don't know what
> it means, but they said it was a voter and you dropped it hence you lose.
> Hence big bear moose forest it is a voter even if dropped gets you
> absolutely nothing. This is additionally important for two other reasons.
> One, I get somewhat lost easily. I assume most debaters are extremely
> intelligent and when you say something I expect that it is probably deep,
> meaningful, and profound. I am, however, frequently let down by that
> assumption. The problem is I get stuck on that point trying to figure out
> what it possibly is that you are trying to say and miss something like the
> next 5 arguments. I just can't get unstuck and dwell for far too long on
> trying to rationalize what it was you were trying to say. If you bank on
> hoisting the other team on their own petard of stupidity, you are more
> likely to lose me then gain me.
> Two, complex/compound sentences with strings of polysyllabic words are
> very hard to unwrap quickly. Especially at 400 words per minute. If your
> tags look like this, or worse like even longer "we affirm topic in time and
> as an always transforming, unevenly developed lateral field of constituted
> and domesticated forces between, e.g., ontology and socio-politics" we are
> going to be in for a long day. No, the old Michael Mapes and I never sat
> around having long conversations about debate theory. I was much more likely
> to engage in that discourse with Ozzy. Unlike Oz, I don't at all mind that
> you do it, whatever floats your boat, but those areas of academia have just
> never interested me and I have other interests that take up most of my days.
> I would just rather read about the latest release of Windows than Slavoj
> Zizek, Heidegger, or Spanos. So, if these authors are your preference, I
> will listen, I will attempt to judge fairly, but I will probably be
> completely unpredictable because I will bastardize your arguments even worse
> than most of debate twists Spanos (at least that is what I hear).
> Third, I quit policy debate because I didn't like how I let myself
> interact with others. I won't blame debate, but it certainly doesn't seem to
> help to bring out the best in others. I work extra hard for people that
> treat the activity, myself, and their opponents with respect. I find rude
> and offensive language highly objectionable. If you need to demean your
> opponents, and get sadistic joy out of "crushing" the other team, there are
> truly better judges for you. I will try not to allow that to influence my
> decision, but I just don't care to judge that kind of round, so why make me?
> Do us both a favor and strike me. Please include me, I will try to include
> you. If you think this activity is all about you, I will listen to your
> narcissism, but I won't be happy. I prefer to be struck in this instance,
> but I will still try to judge fairly. I will be happy to share my decision,
> but don't think for a minute that I will stand there and allow you to
> verbally abuse me. If you have questions about my decision, feel free to ask
> them. I will attempt to explain as best as possible what I did, but I am an
> extremely imperfect human that is fallible in more ways than most. If you
> become overly aggressive in my mind, I will ask you to engage me in dialogue
> once, after that I just walk away.
> Fourth, I came to Wake to attend a tournament with a pair of seniors that
> I had the privilege to work with at a high school camp once and haven't had
> nearly the time to work with in college. I also like to see my wife who
> sometimes seems to like you all more than me so I have to go where she goes.
> That being said, if you still feel the need to rank me higher than whatever
> the last two categories are these days, I will say the following:
> I don't mind judging. I actually enjoy listening to debates and rendering
> decisions. I am in my heart an intellectual elitist. I like playing the
> game. I promise to give you a fair a shake as possible. I take this activity
> very seriously, it is the reason I try to be honest on the front end. If you
> want to roll the dice with me in the back of the room, I won't shirk by
> responsibilities, but I do have limitations that ought be obvious, namely I
> have done nearly zero work on this topic, haven't judge in eons, and I don't
> get out much. If you are still interested, here are my leanings (I will say
> I probably vote against my leanings more often than for them though, so
> realize you need to WIN the arguments for me to vote on them).
> 1. Defense CAN be an absolute out if argued well. That is only defense
> doth not an argument make.
> 2. You should be able to win theory is reject the argument not the
> team if properly defended in the constructive.
> 3. I do not believe uniqueness controls the direction of the link. I
> also believe uniqueness can outstrip the link as an absolute out, so be
> careful how well you "control" uniqueness.
> 4. A well argued link turn may be sufficient to be a link out at
> worse. See 1 and 3.
> 5. Given 1, 3, and 4, you ought be able to reject "risk" of a link
> 6. The following cplans are shaky at best theoretically. Consult,
> PICs, PECs, and agent.
> 7. While not quite Dallas Perkins vocal, my nonverbals are usually
> glaring. You ought be able to determine whether you can go all in on any of
> the above if you are watching me closely. I show distinct signs of
> confusion, bewilderment, amazement, intrigue, curiosity, and disapproval.
> While this may make your shotgun style negative attacks a little harder to
> suck time on, I feel the transparency in the process is more important.
> That's it, pref accordingly.
> Martin Harris
> Systems Engineer - Desktop Architecture
> Drury University-Technology Services
> Office: 417-873-7848
> Fax: 417-873-7835
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
More information about the Mailman