Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lionel Rivera <lrdebater@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: ld-l@europe.std.com
To: ld-l@europe.std.com
Subject: JUDGING PREFERENCE POSTED
I am in complete agreement with the theory that says
that all judges should post a judging philosophy. I
am also in favor of oral critiques and disclosures
after all rounds. I think it does not undermine
debate at all, but instead enhances it and helps to
preserve it as a form of intellectual discourse. with
that said, I have decided to post my judging
philosophy so anyone I may judge in the future will
have a better understanding of what I'm looking for.
This may particularly interest all debaters who will
be attending the Colorado Round Robin and tournament
since ill be judging at both. I may also judge at
Manchester.
BACKGROUND
I did LD debate for 3 years of high school. I
competed at every level of debate, including
nationally. I attended such tournaments as
Glenbrooks, Emory, Harvard, St. Mark's, TOC, etc...
Therefore, I am familiar with and a believer in the
circuit style. This will become more apparent
throughout the email.
PHILOSOPHY
I believe that an LD debate round is won at the top of
the flow. An argument only matters if it impacts the
correct standard. In other words, theoretically a
debater who has convincingly won 1 argument could beat
a debater who has won 100 arguments if the previously
mentioned 1 is the only one in the round that impacts
the standard that will serve as my calculus. To use
more generic LD jargon, by standard I mean the
criterion/a. In my opinion, the value premise and
criterion/a ought never be debated as an argument.
They are the standards for the round. When attacking
the value structure in the proper, never discuss why
your opponent can't achieve it. Argue that it's a bad
calculus for me to use when writing my ballot and that
even if they get it it doesn't matter. Also, I
actually like debates where both debaters agree on the
criterion/a and simply debates who achieves it in the
end. When reading your case in the 1NC, don't be
nervous to simply tell me that you agree with your
opponent's standard. However, any arguments that
appear there are alive too and independently
extendable. Make sure you don't drop any theory type
argumentation at the top of the flow.
I will always make decisions strictly off the flow. I
definitely require a line-by-line/proper all the way
throught until the 1NR (except in the 1AC of course.)
The 2AR should obviously crystalize but can and in my
opinion should refer to specific arguments in the
proper. Also, the 2AR absolutely should extend any
important dropped arguments made in the 1AR that were
not addressed by the 1NR. Also, I will flow everyword
you say. Do not be afraid to make multipointed
answers, and in your next speech don't be scared to
extend the number 5, 6, 7 etc... It will be on my
flow. However, if you are going to choose this route,
make sure our numbers correspond by using accurate
signposting. *****NOTE*****: In my eyes there is
absolutely NO excuse for not covering the affirmative
case in the 1NC. Althought that won't directly
influence the decision and assure an affirmative
victory, it will be highly reflected on the negative
debaters speaker points.
I am tolerant of speed. If you can say it, I can flow
it. However, not in the defense of the people who
would argue that this is an activity about
communication, but I think even though I can tolerate
speed and not drop someone strictly on the grounds
that they went too fast, there is still a level that
should not be exceeded. I believe this level to be
intuitive and needing no explanation.
I have no problem with crystalization down the 1NR
flow as opposed to at the end of the 1NR. Although i
prefer the crystalization to be at the end of the
speech, if it is clear and substantial, I wouldn't
mind it down the flow.
When it comes to types of arguments I like/buy, the
answer is none more than others. I think once we are
in a debate round there is no a priori knowledge and
nothing we can take for granted. Anything can be
defined in my eyes. If there is a
position/case/argument that you have not run because
you're scared people won't "buy" it, when I'm in the
back of the room might be a good time to try it.
Interesting/original case structures, critique type
arguments, etc... are all things I'd love to listen
to. However, as with anything else you could run,
make sure you are not the only person in the room that
understands it. Confusing your opponent until he cant
answer what you are saying is not debate. Also, I
absolutely LOVE theory debate. Debate about what
debate is can be soo much fun to listen to. Don't be
afraid to make theory arguments either. Also, I would
completely buy a overview/offcase argument if
presented right. As long as it is relevant, impacts
the standard, and is presented well, the possibilities
are endless. I will also allow for roadmaping in
every speech after the 1AC that will not count against
the time. If the 1AC thinks they need to roadmap
cause their structure is that odd, hey, that's cool
too.
About evidence, I think almost every good case should
contain some evidence. However, it is not sufficient
as a unique response. This, for example, would be
unacceptable. "first argument calpability- 1. cross
apply my second card from case that says thats not
true. 2. cross apply my thrid card from contention 2
that says the opposite is true etc..." What does that
mean? Evidence should be used to support your
thoughts/arguments. However, if there is a piece of
evidence in case that supposrts a claim you make and
adds a claim/warrant as well, it is fair game to
extend and an opponent should answer it.
Finally, have fun and be nice to eachother. I know
this sounds a bit cheesy and I was'nt always that way
in rounds, but the reason we do/did debate is because
at some point we found it fun. Maybe we don't find it
as fun as seniors looking for TOC bid #2, but we still
stick around, and your opponent in a round is there
trying to learn and have fun like you. Don't be
rude!!! Also, sleazing will not be tolerated when I
am judging!!!! If you drop an argument, you dropped
it. You can attempt to outweigh it, but even when
doing this be careful. It could be taken the wrong
way. Be very clear as to what you are doing.
Anyways, hopes this helps and if you find that I left
anything out in this email feel free to post the
question or backchannel me.
Lionel Rivera
Harvard '04
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message to 'majordomo@world.std.com' with the
single phrase 'unsubscribe ld-l' in the message body. For digest
subscribers the phrase should be 'unsubscribe ld-l-digest'
Address other inquiries to ld-l-owner@world.std.com
|
