[eDebate] ans Larson

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Sun Oct 14 14:26:40 CDT 2007

one argument then more later...

adaptation still occurs but it occurs under two variables instead of the one
that is envisioned by the opponents of the mpj.

its seems more and more frequent that a lot of teams have a "straight up" a
"critical" and a "weird" aff based on the negative team they are
hitting...combine this with judges wioth divergent paradigms and the much
vanuthed adapatation does happen in the current system just under different
parameters....more after this debate,....

On 10/14/07, Jim Hanson <hansonjb at whitman.edu> wrote:
> I'm going to respectfully disagree with ken and joe and others who have
> rejected mpj.
> here's some of the reasons I like mpj:
> 1. most educational
> we pick the judges that can articulate the arguments best and make a sound
> decision. jason elucidated this already quite well.
> 2. most incentive to our kids
> our students know they are going to get judges that are going to listen to
> and fairly evaluate their arguments--that gives them incentive to work
> hard
> rather than be frustrated and say "why should I do all this work?"
> 3. fairest
> whitman versus a k/performance team with a k/performance judge. fair? I
> don't think so. mpj means we're going to get a middle of the road judge
> for
> that round that is going to hear the round fairly for both sides.
> 4. where the teams go
> if a tournament doesn't offer prefs--we won't go unless there are no
> alternatives. tournaments that have tried to shift out of mpj, correct me
> if
> I am wrong, have seen major downturns in attendance. that's both a
> community
> indictment of not having mpj and it indicates what happens when you choose
> not to have mpj--your tournament tanks.
> like josh or jason noted--the glory days were not glory days--they sucked.
> our teams back in the 90s repeatedly got judges we wanted to strike but
> couldn't and we lost in front of those judges and for reasons that were,
> frankly, terrible. when I debated in the 80s and there were fewer
> strikes--it was worse.
> mpj is a.o.k. with me.
> jim :)
> hansonjb at whitman.edu
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "LACC Forensics" <forensics at lacitycollege.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 11:58 AM
> To: "E-Debate" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] ans Larson
> I think Mike has the right idea about Gary's call for an alternative.
> Prior to the full MPJ we practice today, most national-circuit tournaments
> simply allowed a certain number of strikes. Beyond that, judging should be
> random. The strikes serve the purpose of controlling specific issues such
> as
> judges who have prejudices against certain debaters or programs (a very
> real
> problem) but randomizing the remaining judging pool does require teams to
> adapt in ways that currently do not occur.
> Of course, there is no perfect solution. There will never be complete
> adaptation by teams with the great diversity of argumentative approaches
> that have developed. For example, my teams are never going to engage in
> performance alternatives or be pirates no matter who the judge is. But, at
> least there would be a better chance that my teams would have a fair
> chance
> at the few "policy only" judges, as Josh calls them, who might be in the
> pool.
> I will admit that the evidence is merely anecdotal and confounds Gary's
> call
> for testable alternatives, but the more I read this list lately, the more
> I
> see that I am not the only person in the community who thinks that there
> has
> been significantly more stratification and interpersonal conflict in the
> community since MPJ became standard.
> Ken Sherwood
> LACC Debate
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071014/244e8f40/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list