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

Jean-Paul Lacy lacyjp
Fri Oct 12 04:42:10 CDT 2007


So, given that the lines between K & policy are largely arbitrary & based 
on labels, I guess you are abandoning your original position:

"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. "

--JP




At 05:20 AM 10/12/2007, Asha Cherian wrote:
>any judge who draws such lines does so based on her/ his own arbitrary
>rules.  and doing so -- limiting what types of arguments can be made
>in rounds based on the position name label attached to them -- kills
>the educational value of debate in certain regions and makes it
>prohibitively more difficult for many of the debaters in these regions
>to transition successfully into national competition.
>
>
>
>
>
>Asha
>
>On 10/12/07, Jean-Paul Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >  Honestly, I can imagine a very good politics DA presented as a K....and a
> > very bad K presented as a partial solvency takeout.
> >
> >  So, where do you draw the line between "Ks and alternative forms of 
> debate"
> > and the "rest?"
> >
> >  --JP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  At 05:05 AM 10/12/2007, Asha Cherian wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
>
>--
>Asha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071012/594200c3/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list