From: Michelin Christopher Massey <Michelin.Massey@Colorado.EDU>
To: "Philip G. Kerpen" <pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu>,
Issues Concerning HS Lincoln-Douglas Debate <ld-l@world.std.com>
Subject: following the path of bietz...
in following with mike bietz, i will post my judging philosophy as well.
i wholeheartedly agree with both kerpen and bietz that open judging
philosophies (for the purpose of adaptation) is a good thing. in a recent
discussion with an anonymous debater, i was informed that they do not like
to ask judges for their philosophy because they feel like the risk to
backlash is far to high. i think that's sad. additionally, i think that
this is good for people who may not know me (or those who may be one this
list from colorado). since i will probably get out of colorado to judge a
couple of rounds and will indeed judge a couple of rounds here in
colorado, i figure this is a good time to get this out in the open.
a note to phil: my policy judging philosophy will be sent to you too...
with that in mind...
Michelin Massey - Judging Philosophy for HS L/D-Value Debate.
University of Colorado-Boulder Speech and Debate.
i'm a standard flow judge. this has a few implications for the debaters:
1) like bietz, i will know when you are lying. i think he has made it
abundantly clear what that means. 2) i can flow the debates as fast as
you (the debater) can deliver them. just know that if you are going to
speak more quickly, i _expect_ you to still have meaty and substantial
analysis, impact comparisons, etc. additionally, if you are going to spew
or even speak more slowly PLEASE speak clearly! if i have yelled "clear"
more than once, you should know that i am not flowing anymore. just know,
just to reiterate, that just because i can flow speed (and even enjoy a
fast L/D round (as much as a slow one)!!!) that does not mean i am in
favor of poor analysis. 3) the debaters SHOULD NOT drop significant
points on the flow. i want to know exactly where you are and what i
should know when i am there (i.e. what should i be writing?). note: even
though a point may not be significant in your mind, if something is
dropped, arguments _can_ be made important. and, i will buy that line of
analysis all day long; and, twice on Sundays. i also do not take any pity
on an affirmative or negative who may get "spread out" of a debate
(whether they be spread slowly by phat word economy or quickly with poor
or phat word-economy).
by the way, (i know this is kind-of out of order), i do prefer more
philosophical approaches to l/d debates. of course, that is not
necessary, but a strong command over philosophy, good evidence, and
analysis are all things i look for in making sure debaters are doing their
job. examples are welcome, but again, not necessary for victory...
in the end of the debate (last couple minutes of the NR and the 2AR), the
debaters (yes, you!) are expected to clearly show the arguments you want
me to weigh in my decision calculus. i _don't_ mean "crystalize." tell
me what your position is on that particular issue, what your opponent's
position is, and WHY your position is better than your opponent's. you
can do this is in a "three reasons" rebuttal style (which i personally
employ) or a flow-based, policy-esque style. the big thing to know is, i
really, really _hate_ to intervene and weigh the debate the way i would've
if i was debating. if i wanted to debate, i wouldn't have made the trip
here today. don't force me to intervene. and, if you've got questions,
i've got answers.
final note: if you have a penchant for running racist, classist, sexist,
or anti-semitic arguments, i think you will have a tough time winning the
round (an automatic loss is given); or, getting very many speaker points
above _2_. BUT, if winning, performing well, or being perceived as a
rational human being are not your goals, then go right ahead and yell as
many slurs as you can.
most of all, have fun, debate well, and do your best! that's the only
thing i can ask from any of you...
michelin massey.
university of colorado-boulder.
|
