[eDebate] can someone explain?

Beth Skinner beth.skinner
Tue Aug 5 10:51:18 CDT 2008

Some of the MPJ posts start from very different assumptions about how
we relate to judges.  If you strike everyone who ever gave you a 27 or
a loss or had a negative opinion of you then you'd be out of judges
pretty quick.  Maybe that's not true of people who come into college
debate and the MPJ world already at the top of the game but it is true
of most college debaters.  Sometimes you aren't great - sometimes you
might even actually suck.  Sometimes a bad judge will vote for you no
matter what.  The point is, do you respect the judge as a judge (as a
person who will evaluate fairly and who can teach you how to do
better) to trust them with evaluating you again.  I don't know
anything about the particular Fort Hays round that Shanara previously
judged and so I can't say whether I would have made a different
choice.  I believe, however, that you ought to be able to explain why
you make your choices.

I don't think MPJ is evil though it does have some drawbacks.  In some
ways it functions as the creation of self-determined communities
within the larger tournament world.  A sort of middle ground between
total segregation and total integration of communities of interest.
You don't get to pick your opponents (which is good) but at large
tournaments at least you do get to pick your judges and have some
control over the kind of evaluation and education you get.  The people
who see only one kind of debate (technical policy, critical, identity,
dense philosophical) are specialists and highly admired within their
community of interest.  The people who see lots of kinds of debates
are a special breed because they've established trust/skill/reputation
across these communities.  I think that takes some doing and I admire
it.  The bottom line, though, is that getting to pick your company is
a privilege and the exercise of any privilege is open to critique.

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:31 AM, David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com> wrote:
> hi Mike,
> Thanks...   I wasn't characterizing the arguments in the round; I was
> responding to this paragraph of Kevin's (especially the last
> line, which I've underlined):
> "now, let's be very precise here. she said they did poorly *in that round*.
> she did not say 'they suck (as debaters)'. she said 'they sucked (in that
> round)'. when a judge gives you a 27, you can say, 'ok, i never want to
> debate in front of her again', or you can say, 'ok, let's do better in front
> of her next time'. considering the relatively small number of qualified
> judges, the former seems more foolish to me: you're likely to argue in
> front of a particular judge again, so you might as well begin as soon as
> possible the campaign to convince them you don't suck. but even if you
> disagree with that assessment, it is fort hays which claimed that other
> values can trump purely strategic ones. there are forum-preserving or
> forum-enriching values which keep the competitive backdrop intact and
> give significance to wins. fabricating evidence might prove strategic, for
> example, but it also undermines the structure of fair competition. so too
> with striking a black judge. it might prove strategic in the short run, but
> in the long run, it might hurt the game. who wants to pick up ballots in
> an all-white boy's club?"
> (end of quote)
> I was simply expressing the opinion that it hurts an anti-racism project
> to argue that you are hurting diversity even by excluding a judge
> who has gone out of her way to tell you she has a negative opinion of you.
> that's not a very controversial stance... and it is not a judgement on any
> of the
> arguments made in the debate (obviously i was not there and cannot comment;
> and
> obviously I get that Fort Hays' particular args put them in a poor position
> to
> respond adequately)
> best regards,
> david
> On 8/5/08, Michael Dickerson <michael.dickerson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dr Glass,
>> You completely ignored Kevin's post explaining the distinctions being
>> drawn (quite well, I might add) by the Towson debaters during the actual
>> round.  You say:
>> really... any and all of us would have struck that judge... it has nothing
>> to do with wanting to debate in an all white club... and conflating the
>> issues
>> hurts and does not help anti-racism.
>> Go watch the 1AC cross-x.  They never said fort hays struck her because
>> she's black; they said fort hays struck her which proves they are not
>> credible in their claims to be allied with Towson and to seek real diversity
>> by promoting black participation on judging panels.
>> This is not a judgment on anyone in this argument, but a clarification.  I
>> have nothing but respect for Dr. Glass, and so I'd like to see him at least
>> arguing with the correct position rather than some intention-inferring witch
>> hunt that never actually happened.
>> Mike Dickerson
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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