[eDebate] can someone explain?

Paul Johnson paulj567
Tue Aug 5 15:22:22 CDT 2008


actually, given point inflation, you could strike everyone who gave you a 27 and still have a pretty big pool.

especially at CEDA.



--- On Tue, 8/5/08, Beth Skinner <beth.skinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Beth Skinner <beth.skinner at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] can someone explain?
> To: "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com>
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com, "Michael Dickerson" <michael.dickerson at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 10:51 AM
> 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.
> Beth
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


      



More information about the Mailman mailing list