[eDebate] Inspiring the 2A to go for theory

Paul Johnson paulj567
Tue Apr 7 11:08:32 CDT 2009


www.ratemyadjudicator.com

game on!


--- On Mon, 4/6/09, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Inspiring the 2A to go for theory
> To: "brian rubaie" <brubaie at gmail.com>
> Cc: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 8:15 PM
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


      



More information about the Mailman mailing list