[eDebate] Inspiring the 2A to go for theory

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Mon Apr 6 20:15:54 CDT 2009

Quickly then back to cleaning....

Brian is right about judges, but what if the remedy is to let debaters make
comments about judges philsophies, instead of relying on the judges solely
to self report
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:16 PM, brian rubaie <brubaie at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've followed the discussion about states CPs the whole way through and
> really enjoyed it. I agree with JP and Kade that 2As have to stand up for
> themselves. However, the main reason I (and probably others) are reluctant
> to do so is what Scott accurately termed "judge bias against theory."
> I wanted to follow Scott's message with a plea to judges to update their
> philosophy to more accurately reflect their current theory biases. There are
> few feelings more frustrating than hearing someone say "I will never vote on
> (X) being bad" after you have devoted time before the tournament and before
> the round to weighing the risk of making a particular theory argument. If
> more judges posted their thoughts on *strong* theory biases and 2As decide
> not to follow along/capitalize then they deserved to lose from the start.
> Adding detail to a judge philosophy increases the odds that the AFF will
> take risks and the NEG will adapt.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090406/a759bf9e/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list