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

Asha Cherian asha.cherian
Fri Oct 12 04:01:36 CDT 2007


I couldn't agree more with this post, JP -- I welcome a debate in
which a team defends why their arg is a K or performance and I would
happily vote for them on it.

You see now why teams really shouldn't strike me,.  They should treat
me like any other judge who asks a debater to make the round about me
and my limitations, any judge who limits argument diversity.

On 10/12/07, Jean-Paul Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Asha



More information about the Mailman mailing list