[eDebate] Consult CP's - AT: Johnson & Phillips

Steven D'Amico stevendamico
Thu Oct 4 12:59:13 CDT 2007

Speaker points should most definitely be used to consider if a teams
arguments were good.

Speakers points are about atheistic appeal. Certain arguments because they
are dumb, lack atheistic appeal. For all judges, the interpretation is

For example, I find a great theory debate a thing of beauty. Some don't.

For me, I find arguments which are well thought out, creative, and "true"
aesthetic. I.e. when a team can "just be right" about a solvency turn, or
politics disad, or K link.

I find a consult CP debate to be one of the most academically lazy and
stupid arguments in existence. There are variety of reasons I feel this way.
Klinger on the other hand, I suspect, finds a PERM throw down on consult CPs
to be the debate equivalent of Jessica Alba in Sin City.

Thus my speaker points often take into account the atheistic of not only the
speaker, but also their atheistic of their argument.


On 10/4/07, Greg Thomas <greg.thomas at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not that I agree with your position or that I want to debate the
> usefulness of Consult CP's, but if you want to make a point that people
> shouldn't use a particular argument (which may or may not be any good) just
> for the sake of winning, wouldn't the most effective way to do that to be to
> refuse to give that argument any weight in any round you judge, thus making
> it an argument you are very unlikely to hear?  It just seems to me that if
> teams running these arguments are really just trying to get the win by any
> means necessary, they will be less concerned with the points if they think
> they argument can still win the round.  After all, low speaker points get
> tossed, losses do not.
> Just a thought.
> Greg Thomas
> Debate Coach
> Methodist University
> On 10/4/07, Andrew D. Barnes <barnesad at jmu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Claim: It is dumb to punish people's speaker points for running dumb
> > arguments.
> >
> > I can certainly understand this perspective from the standpoint that you
> >
> > are "bludgeoning" someone. However, because the other team is inferior
> > at debating a "dumb" argument does not mean that strategy is persuasive.
> > I can definitely vote for ASPEC even though it is dumb but that does not
> >
> > mean that you have earned a 29. I think it is also disingenuous to all
> > of us in the activity to act as though content does not/should not
> > matter. Many times students and coaches alike are motivated to read new
> > literature and bring new perspectives to the activity precisely because
> > of its value as content. Giving higher speaker points to those students
> > and coaches who go through the pain of providing new content should be
> > rewarded. A system that ignores content will not only discourage
> > innovation and research but also encourage people to continually chose a
> > "dumb" strategy. I'm also skeptical of isolating this as an argument
> > against a clearly defined rubric for evaluation when most judges admit
> > that they have predispositions or "ceilings" when assigning speaker
> > points. You want to know whether a judge votes on conditionality, why
> > wouldn't you be interested in understanding how a judge interprets
> > speaker points. I am not yet convinced that punishing speaker points is
> > necessarily a good idea but I have not yet been convinced that is
> > functionally different than what is happening in the status quo.
> >
> >
> > Claim: Debaters should learn to debate just like we did.
> >
> > Pedagogically this is difficult to dispute as I'm sure most judges have
> > fond memories of their undergraduate debating careers. However, should
> > we revive attitudinal inherency, hypo-testimg, insert favorite dead
> > argument here? Should I start having my debaters make these arguments so
> > that others can learn why these arguments are bad. I guess I've yet to
> > be convinced that losing the ability to learn how to debate the
> > theoretical legitimacy of consult counterplans would be unique visa vi
> > other debate arguments or that debating about consult counterplans
> > offers unique educational benefits as it is applied to theory. Debating
> > education (topic specific or otherwise), ground, fairness and
> > predictability are standards for all theoretical objections. Judges
> > don't have to write their preferences to account for old theory
> > arguments because the community collectively decided that these weren't
> > good strategies/arguments. If there is collective will to claim that we
> > should move away from a particular strategy why shouldn't we use our
> > ability as judges to assess speaker points to move in that direction.
> >
> >
> > Claim: Using judge philosophy to experiment is dumb.
> >
> > Concede. Although my argument is that clarifying and establishing a
> > clear rubric for evaluation is better than the status quo.
> >
> >
> > Claim: Consult counterplans might be legit.
> >
> > I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to these
> > arguments. I can say I have yet to be persuaded that any argument made
> > is a reason why Consult counterplans are uniquely beneficial for the
> > community at large.
> >
> >
> >
> > I still hope that people are interested in a serious conversation about
> > the merits of using speaker points in a public way to deter people from
> > running particular arguments.
> >
> > - Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071004/e328baac/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list