[eDebate] Judging Philosophy of Art Kyriazis
Tue Aug 5 13:54:02 CDT 2008
This attachment was severed when I wrote to indicate I was available to
serve as an unaffiliated judge generally this year and also specifically
available as a hired judge for the Kings College Connelly-Garvey
tournament in Wilkes-Barre, PA September 19-21, 2008 this fall. This is
my judging philosophy:
*_JUDGING PHILOSOPHY OF ART KYRIAZIS_*
Evidence cards may be sought after the round. I will weigh the evidence
and the quality of it pretty heavily in resolving clash. If you attack
methodologies and explain why a card, source or study is either
defective or doesn?t apply, that may win.
Have a 10% hearing loss in my left ear due to a dozen ear operations as
a kid and two as an adult, so you should be *LOUD* when you debate in
front of me.
I flow the round. Fast is good, incomprehensible is not. Once upon a
time, CEDA was supposed to be slower than NDT and NDT faster than CEDA.
I can flow fast. I can even flow very fast. I can?t flow
incomprehensible. Please signpost number and organize your speech. If I
have to do it for you you?re making extra work for me.
I believe in justice as fairness, and thus I will be fair. The process
should be fair, not just the result. Also subscribe to gaming models of
debate. If you argue some other criterion of justness, I can be
persuaded. In short, how I vote is up for debate. If you don?t debate
it, I will by default vote as a policy debate judge, affirmative
advantages v. negative disads etc. If you drop arguments, you lose them.
If you fail to extend arguments, you lose them. I flow extensions and
drops pretty carefully.
Kritiks, conditionals, counterplans, meta-languages, skepticism,
stoicism, utilitarianism, /credo ut intelligam, intelligo ut credam,
cogito ergo sum, /negation, universals, Derrida, Foucault,
deconstructionism, Rawls, relativism, absolutism, feminist, racist,
civil rights theories are all welcome.
Cross-ex is underused and I listen to it. Admissions in cross-ex may be
binding. Cross-ex is also good for undermining or attacking evidence.
Unless the teams are tournament anonymous, please write your names and
your schools on the board and the side you are defending. Also, someone
please write the exact wording of the resolution on the blackboard.
Topicality arguments should be argued well?a lexical or contextual
definition followed by some reasoned argument could win. A short sketchy
argument probably will not win.
Rebuttals are probably the most important part of the debate for me.
Highlight your winning arguments. Extend your winners and signpost them.
Argue your winning arguments in order of best to worst. Don?t worry
about jumping around the flow. Finish back on your best, winning
argument and with some kind of rhetorical flourish. Tell me the
compelling reason for voting for your side in the round at the end of
the last rebuttal.
Be nice and pleasant to one another during the round. Rudeness and/or
un-pleasantries are uncalled for in academic debate.
--Art Kyriazis, judging philosophy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 397 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/6f270a95/attachment.vcf
More information about the Mailman