[eDebate] Judging Consult CP's

Martin Harris mharris02
Wed Oct 10 00:14:04 CDT 2007


   I think I have a counterplan for you Aaron. A lot of the initial
responses seemed to quickly degenerate into ad homs, snide career
attacks, and pithy jokes, so if this has been said before, just make it
a ditto. I stopped reading some of the thread. I think the problem with
your status quo approach is two fold. First, it presumes you are solely
correct placing a much too large penalty on "testing" new argument which
stifles innovation (the opposite of your goal) and second, it does you
and your teams a disservice by almost guaranteeing you will be locked
out of that argument innovation not being able to stay up on the latest
and greatest in consult cplan theory. One of the many things I learned
from Will was the need to be fair and balanced in your judging. Access
to rounds is just the BEST way a coach can stay on top of args allowing
them to prep out answers. 

 

   While consult might be an exception, I don't think most theory is
that stagnant, and I doubt consult will remain such for ever. I agree
with a LOT of your problems with consult. I don't think some of them are
all that great an arg myself. Least of which is the claim that seems to
make consults as practiced in debate acontextual to the real world. A
veto to the plan doesn't really seem to be supported much by the
literature, and yet that is what it seems to be sold as at times. What
happens when consult junkies start to adopt to this and change the arg
accordingly though? Your plan locks out the neg ability to be creative.
The, that's not my consult theory response with new kitchy consult
analysis because to TRY and run the counterplan locks the neg into an
immediate 26. An almost prohibitive penalty as your goal seems to
concede.

 

   Why not instead adopt what I will call the Dallas Perkins
counterplan. Disclose your predispositions, state your objections
upfront, and then let the negative run their argument but give them
copious amounts of nonverbal (maybe verbal) feedback on how you are
feeling about the argument? I think the negative will get the hint if
they are running the same old same old, but you allow people to
experiment on debate theory. An objective you claim to support. 

 

   Just a suggestion. I have no dogs in the hunt, and am not sure any
teams I keep dibs on are all that locked into consult strats, so it
matters me none either way. I just thought I would offer some insights I
have had as a critic everytime I have been tempted to go down the round
you are currently travelling, and you did say you wanted constructive
criticism on your "philosophy," so there you go.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071010/c346ab6f/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list