[eDebate] just in case you hadnt read it
Sat Oct 13 14:20:04 CDT 2007
my judging philosophy is not one of the old interventionist ones, korcok
says he fixed me, perhaps im fixed dont know if it was korcok but just for
reference this my actual philsophy...not sure how i am the stand in for all
interventionist judges at this point but whatever
Judge Philosophy: I have for the most part given up on trying to structure
debates into some vision I have of how a debate should be. So my basic
philosophy is that I will allow the 4 debaters to shape and determine the
debate as they would like. *Note in this regard*-If both teams agree to
allow a judge other than myself to judge the debate then I will comply,
*Regardless of the silly and baseless impositions of the tab room, in fact
stupid tab room administrators are more likely to convince me this is a good
idea than if they would just stay quiet.*
That all being said there are some things I like and some things I don't.
5 of each should suffice.
5. I like it when there is a purpose to your debating, I think the resources
that we use are hugely valuable and I think there are some responsibilities
that come along with getting access to those resources, your purpose doesn't
have to agree with my political ideologies.
4. I like well explained and developed arguments that don't expect me to
take "extend the Dillon" as a sufficient 2nr argument
3. I like impact and link analysis.
2. I like cards to be used in the debate not just read.
1. I like being able to flow the debate if you want me to (easier said then
done im not that great on the minutia of some ans or the speed of others.)
5. I don't like exclusionary debate practices.
4. I don't like reading more than two or three cards per team after the
3. I don't like theory debates that don't give me pen time yet expect me to
vote on them when they are dropped.
2. I don't like the simplistic version of the fiat is illusory assumption,
you need to compare the effects of the discourse you are criticizing vs the
benefits it accrues.
1. I don't like it when people have questions about a judging philosophy and
don't attempt to clarify. I wont bite or any thing. I'm nice.
*Conclusion:* Many of you will doubt that I can shed my previous judging
philosophies, and that may be an indication of what I do like, but I will
make my best effort to evaluate the debates that I am presented with by the
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman