[eDebate] Reactionary Judge Philosophies Re: lacyjp at wfu.edu

Jean-Paul Lacy lacyjp
Fri Oct 12 04:26:23 CDT 2007


I do have to make it clear that this message was not directed at you.

It was, however, directed at judges who systematically ignore policy 
relevant arguments due to jargon. (In this case, K jargon.)

As a debate coach, I fully understand that how an argument is phrased and 
framed has a dramatic outcome on how it is judged.

So, my post should not be read as simply railing against the "K/Policy" 
divide, but more at the simplistic language that divides the two, making 
certain sensical decisions "out of bounds."

--JP



At 05:15 AM 10/12/2007, Asha Cherian wrote:
>any judge who limits out certain arguments from even being introduced
>in a debate is reactionary.
>
>like i said in my first follow up post, if you don't vote on generic
>link Ks, you probably don't vote on generic link disads.   and if you
>don't vote on link of omission performances, you probably don't 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.
>
>we have to call out these constructs -- the K, the performance -- and
>the biases that inhabit them before we can find remedies to them.
>
>
>
>
>
>Asha
>
>On 10/12/07, Jean-Paul Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu> wrote:
> > The original subject line should read "Reactionary Judge Philosophies"
> >
> >
> > At 12:36 AM 10/12/2007, Jean-Paul Lacy wrote:
> >
> >
> > >We've seen quite a few recently.
> > >
> > >They bother me. [Sort of...] While debate judging is inherently
> > >"reactionary," it need not impose a particular worldview, but educate 
> about
> > >how people normally make decisions.
> > >
> > >Too many judges forget that each debate team is trying to win with the 
> best
> > >arguments they have in their tubs.
> > >
> > >It is true that every debater wants to know their judges predispositions.
> > >No debater should have to debate in front of a critic making arguments 
> that
> > >are doomed from the outset. I definitely empathize with those judges who
> > >hold strong convictions about arguments they'd rather not hear. Some
> > >arguments are fair game for one critic and out of bounds for another. 
> Given
> > >that the ideal of 'open minded' judging is unreachable, it is obviously
> > >important for judges to indicate where their 'open minds' end. Fair 
> warning
> > >to debaters is the best we, as judges, can do.
> > >
> > >Honestly, most of us could care less what side of the "consultation" 
> debate
> > >you lie on, as long as you give the debaters prior notice. None of you are
> > >going to change your minds. Stating your predispositions is incredibly
> > >helpful: Your pedagogy is incredibly important to debaters, and debating
> > >within your preferences obviously helps debaters maximize the educational
> > >gain from each debate round.
> > >
> > >Sometimes though, judges predispositions go too far.
> > >
> > >One example: The K/Policy divide has become silly in certain important
> > >respects.
> > >
> > >Witness Northwestern's "Constructive Disengagement K:"
> > >
> > >Does it take a "K" judge to realize that the alternative is relevant to a
> > >policy maker with the power to implement the plan?
> > >
> > >Does it take a "policy" judge to understand that the "withdrawal bad"
> > >impact turns have to come to grips with the negatives "cut & run now"
> > >arguments?
> > >
> > >No!
> > >
> > >Does it take a genius to figure out that most "representations" K's have
> > >nothing to do with the plan's desirability?
> > >
> > >No!
> > >
> > >Unfortunately, I have seen or heard of too many debates where the policy/K
> > >divide stood in the way of judging these particular argument on its 
> merits.
> > >
> > >In the end, this is a plea to understand two hackneyed arguments:
> > >
> > >1. Judge the debate you watch on its own merits.
> > >
> > >& 2. Open your mind at least enough to understand how an argument fits 
> your
> > >precepts.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >eDebate mailing list
> > >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
>
>
>--
>Asha




More information about the Mailman mailing list