[eDebate] Shame on critics without philosophies

David Glass gacggc
Thu Sep 20 22:32:39 CDT 2007


as pointed out a few times, and noted ironically by Brent,
a very convenient place to post is:

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com

Just follow the very simple do-it-yourself directions.
If you have any trouble, let me know, or send me your philosophy and
i will post it for you.

David Glass
Asst Coach, Harvard Debate
gacggc at yahoo.com

On 9/20/07, Steven D'Amico <stevendamico at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> evidence.
>
> 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
> > >
> > >
> > > SubjectRe: [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 > 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
> > > 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>



More information about the Mailman mailing list