[eDebate] Shame on critics without philosophies

Steven D'Amico stevendamico
Thu Sep 20 19:00:01 CDT 2007

My philosophy:

T and theory is a debate of competeting interpreations of what's best for
debate. I do not, nor have ever, understood, what resonabilitly is.

Ks are fun if done well. The suck when done poorly. The more specific the
better. Treat your alt like a CP.

DAs are fun if done well. They suck when done poorly. The more specific the
better. You probably need a CP this year. I work in politics, and will treat
poor and lazy polititcs DAs with much suspicion.

Case Debate: The more the better, the more warrants the better, the more
specific the better.

In the words of Gordie Miller: "They'll say something, and then we got em."
Direct refutation is good.

Summary: I like disads, I like Ks, I like T, I like theory, I love case
debate. I dislike bad debate arguments... i.e. non-specific ones with crappy

No one should ever read the Strait and Wallace evidence in front of me,
unless they want to recieve a 25... those guys stink worse than my feet
after a van ride. Arlee can atest.

I'll see you suckas after November 6th.

D'Amico III

On 9/20/07, Brent Culpepper <brentonculpepper at gmail.com> wrote:
> In response to the very effective calling out strategy of getting people
> to post their judging philosophies, I have copied and pasted mine from an
> obscure website http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com to edebate. [very
> covertly titled I know]  It is not tailored to this year's topic.  Frankly,
> I don't know much about it.  If you have any questions about it feel free to
> ask Jarrod Atchison - I pretty much copied his.  Eli's post was funny......
> Here is the way I tend to view certain debate issues:
> Critiques/Performance Debates: I start with this because this is where I
> am the least comfortable judging debates. I am familiar to an extent with
> some critical theory but am by no means an expert.
> For the negative, I am much more sympathetic to critique ground and
> believe it can be a valuable tool in a 2N's arsenal. However, Critiques must
> either win that the alternative solves (or resolves) the affirmative at some
> level ? If you concede the affirmative advantages and fail to call them into
> question and do not have an alternative that solves them then it will be
> difficult for you to win. That being said ? certainly arguments can be made
> that would lead me to disregard the affirmative advantages. However, those
> arguments are often difficult given the presumed specificity of the
> affirmative's evidence and the generic nature of most K cards.
> For the affirmative, I believe that unless otherwise persuaded the debate
> is about resolving whether the plan is preferable to the Status Quo or a
> competitive policy option. I believe the affirmative should defend the
> implementation of the plan ? not just the plan as some transient moment in
> time that ruptures all of international politics as only your plan could.
> There has also been an unfortunate trend among affirmatives to merely say
> all of debate is bad, rules are bad and Topicality is nothing more than the
> Holocaust reincarnated. I find all three of these claims to not just border
> but embrace the limitless abyss of absurdity. If you find the debate
> community to be beyond salvation then I strongly encourage you to find
> another activity worth your while and not continue to disrupt my ability to
> enjoy what you consider the root cause of all violence. That being said,
> debate is ultimately about those debating and not me thus I will attempt to
> remain an objective evaluator. The only time this goes away is if you ask me
> to become a part of debate or ask my ballot to send a message. If you do
> this then I will not endorse something I do not politically believe in. If
> the ballot is merely a telling of wins and losses then I will remain
> objective.
> This does not mean that critical affirmatives are not cool. Many critical
> affirmatives claim advantages off of a topical plan and that is a valuable
> argument choice of which I often find incredibly strategic.
> Topicality ? Topicality is ultimately about establishing a fair division
> of predictable ground that ensures each team has access to a constructive
> debate. This means that my default is not the most limiting interpretation
> but typically a reasonable interpretation by the affirmative that provides
> the best vision of debate is sufficient.
> Theory ? Arguments require a certain level of logical coherence before I
> will regard them as arguments and thus relevant to a decision. Many theory
> arguments fail to do this when they are blippy and ill explained.
> Conditionality is almost always ok as well as PICS, Agent CPs etc?.Although
> when your back is against the wall do what must be done. Consultation
> counterplans are only competitive to me in a world where the answer is No.
> In a world where the answer is yes, then it seems as though the permutation
> is plan plus.
> CP/DA/Case Strategy ? Sounds Good.
> Cross-Examination ? This is a vital portion of debates and can direct the
> outcome of a decision if done correctly. Do not merely use it as preparation
> time for your partner.
> Speaker Points ? Two major factors that can increase speaker points are
> good C/X's and high evidence quality. They can also decrease speaker points.
> Everything that I have said above are my biases. I don't believe I left
> anything of note out. However, remember that the object of debate is to WIN.
> When facing another team that you will need to upset or what have you ? do
> what you think gives you the best chance at winning. Just understand that
> what I've written above can affect the ability of certain arguments to be
> persuasive to me. At the end of the day, remember that while for some this
> is your last high school tournament, don't get so caught up in it that you
> fail to spend time hanging out with the friends you have made. That may even
> beat out winning as your first priority.
> On 9/19/07, EMarlow at ucok.edu <EMarlow at ucok.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out.  There are multiple places, but the most
> > easily accessible is debateresults.com
> >
> > Don't think I was trying to waste you time with my self indulgence...I
> > really am not, but you can make up your own mind if you ever actually get to
> > know me.  Thanks for the ad hom from the cheap seats.
> >
> > Marlow
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   *"Eli Brennan" <elibrennan at gmail.com>*
> >
> > 09/19/2007 02:12 PM
> >    To
> > "EMarlow at ucok.edu" < EMarlow at ucok.edu>  cc
> >
> >  Subject
> > Re: [eDebate] Shame on critics without philosophies
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Very informative post.
> >
> > Except that you don't provide any information about where these
> > philosophies are hosted/viewed... so on the off chance that your venom was
> > misplaced- that maybe the rules of posting philosophies are not as self
> > evident as they are for you- a judge may follow up on your suggestion and
> > post their philosophy.
> >
> > [sigh]
> > another casualty of utterly self-indulgent rhetoric.
> > eli brennan
> > umn debate
> >
> > On 9/19/07, *EMarlow at ucok.edu * <EMarlow at ucok.edu><*EMarlow at ucok.edu*<EMarlow at ucok.edu>> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to call out all of you who refuse to post your
> > philosophies.  I don't know if this is some bullshit ploy to avoid being
> > prefered or if you are just lazy, but it sucks that I have to make decisions
> > about critics without knowing their bias.  This also goes out to those of
> > you who did yours in 1999 and haven't updated it.  That's just plain
> > laziness.  Get off your lazy asses.  If you are an educator, you should try
> > to help create more educational debates and stop trying to get out of
> > judging your commitments.
> >
> > Sorry, but it sucks that I have to rank every judge at G-State and there
> > are a bunch that I don't know and don't have any way of garnering more
> > information.  This also goes out to directors with multiple judges.  I know
> > that I make sure that all of the people that judge for UCO have a philosophy
> > that is accessible to the debaters.  If you have people judging for you
> > without them, you aren't doing your job.
> >
> > Forgive the rant...If you are one of these people, I say shame on you.
> >
> > Peace,
> > Marlow
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > ***CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain
> > confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized
> > disclosure or use of this information is prohibited.*
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list*
> > **eDebate at www.ndtceda.com* <eDebate at www.ndtceda.com> *
> > **http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate*
> > <http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Eli Brennan
> >
> > "So it goes." - Vonnegut
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > ***CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain
> > confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized
> > disclosure or use of this information is prohibited.*
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070920/da2756d9/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list