Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:57:46 -0400
From: Ben Shultz <shultz@fas.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: ld-l@europe.std.com
To: LD Listserv <ld-l@world.std.com>
Subject: Another Judging Philosophy
[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
I should be doing homework right now, but instead I will take some time out
to post my judge philosophy. I, like others, stongly believe that debaters
should know what judges are looking for.
Name: Ben Shultz
Location: I primarily judge in the Boston and New York areas, but have been
known to show up at national circuit tournaments in warmer locations when
someone else pays for my plane ticket.
What I Look For: At the end of the round i look at what arguments have been
extended and impacted to the value criteria. If you do not have a value
criteria, you should at least appeal to some sort of *explicit* weighing
mechanism. If neither debater gives me a weighing mechanism, i will be
forced to pick one of my own. I don't like doing this, and I make no
guarantees as to its objectivity.
After the value criteria, the next most important thing for me is evidence.
I am a firm believer in the "Jason Baldwin Evidentiary School of Thought."
For those of you that haven't been to the Kentucky Institute, this means
that I expect *all* empirical claims to be backed up by empirical evidence.
HS debaters (and their judges) are generally not experts in whatever field
they are making an empirical claim in. Thus, i expect you to cite someone
who *is* an expert in that field. This does not mean that you can blindly
read cards and expect me to buy your arguments; I certainly expect debaters
to supplement evidence with there own analysis (though I am sympathic to
cards that contain analysis within them). What this does mean, however, is
that given two debaters with differing empirical claims, I will give
significant weight to the side that offers empirical evidence to support
their side.
With respect to style, I am a hardcore flow judge. Speed (within the limits
of reasonability, though i have fairly high tolerance for this) is generally
not an issue. Speaking style may get you an extra speaker point if you're
particularly engaging, but it does not factor into my decisions. What I am
looking for then is for you to refute and extend arguments, then impact them
during crystalization.
Random Things: I don't like balance negs and i think they are almost always
abusive. Nevertheless, if you run a balance neg I will not drop you if your
opponent does not make the abuse argument. If he/she does, you're out of
luck.
Other than that, I'm pretty receptive to whatever wierd things you want to
do: theory arguments, straight refuation negs, crystalizing as you go in NR.
To sum up, i'm basically looking for national circuit style with perhaps a
bit more ephasis on evidence than the average circuit judge.
Ben Shultz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|
