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

Asha Cherian asha.cherian
Fri Oct 12 04:05:13 CDT 2007


the lines between positions and their status as policy or kritikal/
performative are pretty fluid.



Asha

On 10/12/07, Asha Cherian <asha.cherian at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>


-- 
Asha



More information about the Mailman mailing list