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

Jean-Paul Lacy lacyjp
Fri Oct 12 03:54:00 CDT 2007


The point of my somewhat incoherent post prior to the one responding to 
yours is:

There is little difference between some Ks and some Policy arguments.

I used Northwestern's "Constructive Disengagement" K/CP as an operative 
example.

Would you be more willing to vote on Northwestern's argument if it were 
presented as a K or a CP?

Your "Richmond Specific" philosophy seems you'd prefer K jargon....in 
reality, what is the difference?

--JP


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




More information about the Mailman mailing list