[eDebate] my Richmond updated judge philosophy -- please read

Jean-Paul Lacy lacyjp
Fri Oct 12 03:26:47 CDT 2007


Defense?

No.

What I wrote was offense.

Your call for "dialog" results in the opposite, at least for the debaters 
you judge at Richmond.

"Clarity" is not dialog when presented as "Unless the Richmond judging 
pool's institutionally accepted aversion for critical debate changes...at 
Richmond my judge philosophy is to vote on Ks and alternative forms of 
debate. And that's it"

What you wrote is an ultimatim.

An ultimatim is the opposite of dialog.

If by "dialog," you mean "clarity," you are the master of doublespeak.

--JP


[It is a separate discussion as to how much judges should impose 
themselves...I don't disagree *at all* that debaters who fulfill your 
expectations of good debating should be rewarded, I just disagree that 
certain argument styles should be automatically rewarded, even with your 
caveats. There are good debates to be had in any style, why not judge them 
on their own merits instead of flipping a coin?]







At 04:04 AM 10/12/2007, Asha Cherian wrote:
>Jean-Paul and Paul respond defensively -- that's exactly what I
>believe defensive, exclusionary judge philosophies, like mine,
>engender.
>
>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'
>philosophies.
>
>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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Asha
>
>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
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
>
>
>--
>Asha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071012/b4f07201/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list