[eDebate] Shunta Jordan judging philosophy
Dr. Joe Bellon
Wed Sep 19 16:30:40 CDT 2007
Here is one of Shunta's published philosophies. Not guaranteed to be 100% up
to date, but it's the best I can do right now:
Name = Shunta Jordan
Affiliation = Pace Academy
I have judged at the following high school tournaments this year: Wake, St.
Mark's, Westminister, Michigan, Ohio Valley, Barkley Forum, Harvard, UGA,
the NDCA Championship, and various in-state (GA) tournaments.
Philosophy = I am a former high school and NDT debater. I have been in the
activity for 18 years. It has been interesting seeing the
evolution of debate in those years.
As a judge, I am always willing to pull the trigger on topicality. However,
teams lose credibility with 15-second blip answers with no explanation as to
why their interpretations are comparably better. I tend to believe
topicality is about competing interpretations. As a result, I tend to like
argumentation that persuades me of such. I hate whiny abuse standards and
independent voters on topicality. Don't waste my time with these arguments.
As for critiques, I'm not highly fond of them. No one seems to slow down and
explain the implications of such arguments in a debate round. I've voted for
a critique 7 times in my life. I believe that a critique must link as well
as the alternative must do something. Critiques that ask me to just reject
the Aff will probably get you a loss. However, I am more willing this year
to listen to and perhaps vote on a critique. These arguments are germane to
this year's topic; however, this does not mean run a critique in front of me
every time I judge you. Be subjective!
Most of the theory goo is whiny as well. Devote your time to more
substantive arguments rather than focusing on whether dispositionality or
conditionality is good/bad. That being said ? if a team fails to adequately
address these issues in the debate, (ex. 1AR spends 3 min on theory; 2NR
spends 30 sec on it, and the 2AR goes for theory), they will probably be on
the losing end.
In summary, I prefer straight up debates: counterplans, disads
(case-specific ones would be great), topicality, and case. I am willing to
consider theoretical implications (critiques) as well if need be.
Teams stand the best chance of winning my ballot when the rebuttals include
some type of decision calculus of the round. Always compare your arguments
and evidence to your opponents. Tell me what you are winning versus what
your opponents are winning. I hate reading a ton of evidence at the end of
rounds. Don't give me any reason to interject myself in a round or draw my
own conclusions from a piece of evidence. Leave it in my hands, and you
might not like the results.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman