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

Jean-Paul Lacy lacyjp
Fri Oct 12 19:48:56 CDT 2007


If the only real boundary between K & Policy is the jargon arguments are 
lacquered with, why let it get in your way?

I've long felt that the best debaters could get past the artifice of 
conventional "debate speak" and get to the substance of arguments.

I think its apparent you share this view. What I don't quite get is how 
adding another closed mind to the judging pool is going to help people 
explore preexisting boundaries & learn to get at the substance of 
persuasive arguments.

I do understand your position as one way of correcting a bias you see in 
the judging pool. I don't see it as bias, but a basic failure to communicate.

I guess I'd rather help debaters learn to listen better, convey their ideas 
effectively & to explain how to make their arguments persuasive.

Yes, sometimes I wish judges were more open minded. Sometimes while 
judging, I have my mind opened in ways I didn't expect.

On the other hand, sometimes I understand that judges already are open 
minded, the trouble (and the fun) is finding and communicating with the 
"open" parts of their minds.

--JP

At 06:00 AM 10/12/2007, Asha Cherian wrote:
>I have yet to abandon any of what I said.  But I can understand why it
>might be confusing.
>
>Judges who espouse limiting positions, like I do in this philosophy,
>punish debaters for arbitrary reasons.  They decrease the value of
>debate through their contradictions and the negative effects on
>competitive quality coming out of those regions.
>
>If debaters were to explore the lines between K/ alt and policy
>debate, they would expose the fluidity of the boundaries of K/ alt
>positions versus more traditional positions, exposing the root of what
>these boundaries and their identifications have come to mean.
>
>Good night.  More to come tomorrow, I'm sure...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Asha
>
>On 10/12/07, Jean-Paul Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >  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
>
>
>--
>Asha




More information about the Mailman mailing list