[eDebate] my Richmond updated judge philosophy -- please read
Fri Oct 12 03:04:07 CDT 2007
Jean-Paul and Paul respond defensively -- that's exactly what I
believe defensive, exclusionary judge philosophies, like mine,
If it's legit for one judge to vote only on traditional policy args,
it's legit for another judge to vote only on nontraditional args. My
judge philosophy is the logical extension of many Richmond judges'
By dialogue I mean clarity. Within these respective roles, no one on
either side of this binary has a shot at real dialogue on the really
important questions, like the implications of polarized regional
debate (the 2 poles are those with a record of voting on all types of
arguments & and those without one). And we can't get to the point of
talking about these effects without talking about the constructions we
create when we speak about positions in polarizing language, like
'most kritik debate is bad.' We have to get nuanced in the way we
talk and think about positions. For example the basis for judges
grouping performance and K debate seems illegit (those who say they
reject both). If you don't vote on generic link Ks, it's a
contradiction to not vote on generic link disads. If you don't vote
on link of omission performances, it's a contradiction to not vote on
link of omission Ts. If this is you, your beef isn't with certain
types of positions, but with certain types of links.
This is what I think right now. And I have thought this for a while.
I wrote my Richmond-only philosophy to challenge my assumptions.
Other judges should seek out ways to challenge their own -- we need
creative solutions to these problems. The medium I'm going to use is
the same one so many among us advocate in and out of round: role
playing. Before I try to defend why this binary is bad, in my rounds
at Richmond I'm going to role-play why this binary is good.
On 10/12/07, Jean-Paul Lacy < lacyjp at wfu.edu > wrote:
> At 11:13 PM 10/11/2007, Asha Cherian wrote:
> To provoke something-approaching-dialogue, I'm posting this here. Please post or backchannel me.
> Dialogue? Whatever.
> You said this:
> Unless the Richmond judging pool's institutionally accepted aversion for critical debate changes (in the form of amended judge philosophies &/ or a productive listserv conversation), at Richmond my judge philosophy is to vote on Ks and alternative forms of debate. And that's it. No, I won't vote on any K/ performance argument; I'll vote on philosophically sound, theoretically defensible, topically intriguing Ks and alt forms of debate. And though I neither support this rule nor the implications of having such rules mandated by tournament-governing debate associations, fine, the Ks should have alternatives (ADA). If you want do some case work, negs, okay. But if neither team goes for a K or performance arg (even if K/ performance -friendly args were run), all 4 of the debaters in the room can count on receiving their hi-lo lows from me. If neither team acknowledges this judging philosophy, I'll flow the round fastidiously, flip a coin to decide the winner, give everyone a 25 and sign the ballot accordingly.
On 10/12/07, Paul Strait <paulstrait at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
> Put me in the judging pool for Richmond, for all the rounds. Also, my
> richmond-only judging philosophy is that I will give only zeros for speaker
> points and I will vote for the team that I think did the worst debating.
> Since I will not be preferred, I am just going to stay in Los Angeles.
> Please mail me my paycheck for judging at your convenience. By the way, I
> am totally open to dialog about this, and I genuinely think freeloading is a
> good way to change the corrupt system. Also I am an asshole.
> (I'm seriously sad I can't make it to Richmond this year, its one of my
> favorite tournaments).
> L. Paul Strait
> Ph.D. Student,
> Annenberg School for Communication
> University of Southern California
> Cell: 202-270-6397
> Email: strait at usc.edu
> Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!
> Try now!
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
More information about the Mailman