Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:42:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andrew Torrez <patorrez@email.com>
Reply-To: ld-l@europe.std.com
To: ld-l-digest@world.std.com
Subject: Andrew Torrez - Judging Philosophy (very long)
I usually give this spiel to the debaters before the round begins. Note:
my wife (Terri) and my sister (Carla) also judge this event on the circuit,
and their philosophies undoubtedly differ from both mine and each other's.
Make sure you know which Torrez you have. :)
I. Analysis
You can't win my ballot without having the superior analysis in the round.
To that end, I'd encourage you to read the first half of Alex Weaver's
judging philosophy; I endorse it wholeheartedly. Specifically:
1. Value/Value Criteria clash. This is always the most important issue in
the round. It is nearly always the first item I list on the RFD (unless
there are major problems with the round, such as a negative who gives a
7-minute prewritten speech or some such). The debater who wins this line
almost always wins my ballot. Of course, in many rounds, neither debater
wins the value clash.
This present resolution (hate speech) is the first one in recent years where
there was almost no opportunity for a debater to win the value clash. Most
resolutions *aren't* like that, even if both debaters pretty much agree to
punt them in the round anyway. I find that a pity.
Do NOT run a completely worthless empty shell of a value ("Justice as giving
each their due" people; I'm talking to you). Link the value to the words
of the resolution. Explain your value with a criterion/criteria that (a)
narrows the scope of your value, (b) explains how one achieves your value,
and (c) links to the specific arguments you make in your contentions.
2. Impacts. I can keep a great flow; I flow cards, taglines, analysis, the
works. In order to intervene as little as possible, I will not do ANYTHING
with the arguments on the flow unless you tell me what to do with them. If
you just blip out "extend" or "drag this across", I'll do it -- but I can't
promise that said dragged argument will have much weight in the final
analysis. (Yes, I understand the time crunch on the Affirmative; if you go
for drops in 1AR, I'm expecting a mighty fine 2AR to pull it together.)
The very best thing to do is impact in light of your value/value criterion
while extending the argument. Make it unquestionably important.
I buy groupings, cross-applications, and "I addressed the
substance/link/warrant of this argument elsewhere" if specifically made by
the debater.
In general, I'm one rosy table.
3. Analysis. If the debaters fail to give me a clear standard for weighing
the arguments advanced in the round, I'm going to have to pick one based on
my own preferences. Generally, that involves looking to the debater who
showed the strongest depth and quality of analysis on the issues. That
doesn't have to be in opposition to flow coverage -- the very best debaters
do both, obviously -- but in a muddled round I'm going for analysis first,
flow second. What impresses me most? Solid analysis of philosophy and
application to the round. (See below.)
4. Flow coverage. If both debaters advanced roughly the same quality of
arguments, with similar plusses and minuses, and neither really gave me a
good V/VC standard to judge the round, I will sometimes look to the flow to
see if there's a disproporationate lack of coverage on one side of the flow.
I REALLY hate playing "count up the dropped arguments," though, and I'm not
likely to give you much in the way of speaks here.
Understand and label for me the difference between defensive and offensive
arguments. If both debaters spend the entirety of the round arguing on one
side of the flow (say, the Aff), even if the Neg case goes mostly dropped,
I'm likely to vote Aff based on comparative advantage if there are no
extended and impacted offensive args on the Neg. In other words: if the
whole round boils down to the question of "Is the Aff right?", then any
miniscule chance that the answer is "yes" is going to get an Aff ballot.
These sorts of rounds are rare, but they do happen.
5. Philosophy. I love it. I buy it as a top-of-the-flow issue,
particularly deontology vs. teleology. Flip side: I hate it when used
improperly. If you're going to use Kant, for example, I expect citations to
either one of his works (I know, he's a windbag; the _Groundwork_ isn't too
bad) or to a treatise specifically analyzing Kant. If you use the debate
institute shorthand formula (i.e., the "Golden Rule" or the "Do we all share
in the ends?"), I'm likely to just drop the whole argument out.
I will never intervene and drop a debater based on his misuse of philosophy
if uncontradicted by the opponent. I may not even drop speaks all that
much. But I do throw the argument out of the round.
Same thing, incidentally, with evidence quoted grotesquely out of context.
Read the original article; don't just cite the briefs. I drop the argument
out the round.
6. Evidence, appropriateness of. I often find myself circling the rule on
the ballot (when it's there) that the debaters need to use logical
argumentation THROUGHOUT and evidence WHERE NECESSARY. Here's my dividing
line:
GOOD: Debater A makes an value claim which depends on the ends ("We have a
moral obligation to educate every student equally"). Debater A makes an
empirical argument supporting that value claim ("Hate speech undermines the
ability of some to get an equal education"). Debater A then provides
empirical evidence to support the previous argument.
BAD: Debater A makes a value claim ("Freedom is bad"), and then reads a
card out of some handbook instead of using his or her own analysis.
Incidentally, I think this is good advice for writing 1ACs, too. Look for
cards that specifically evidence your empirical assertions. Shy away from
cards with great-sounding rhetoric that just make the same unevidenced claim
you could have made on your own.
7. Evidence, use of. In general, I find that cards in rebuttals are less
persuasive than analysis unless they specifically redress a disputed issue.
Example: AFF says "John Stuart Mill favored restricting hate speech"; NEG
says, "No he didn't, he loved all speech"; AFF in 1AR reads a card from Mill
explaining the speech he thought could be restricted.
II. Speaker Points
In general, I give out speaks on the basis of good analysis, not pretty
oratory. I will make comments on your oratory to the extent that it
undermines your ability to make your arguments stick. The biggest comment I
give to younger debaters is some version of "write your own cases!" --
nothing is less persuasive than someone who can't make it through the big
words in their own quotes or stumbles repeatedly over their 1AC.
I do not give out high speaks to LDers who ought to be in OI; i.e., the
folks who say nothing but say it very prettily.
I dock speaks when debaters mis-analyze philosophy, use evidence out of
context, lie in rebuttals, suffer massive lapses of organization, etc.
Speed is fine if you can handle it. I find myself writing "Slow down a lot
-- you're stumbling over your own words!" on ballots quite frequently,
though.
My speaker point scale is pretty consistent. Below 25, you've got two or
more major problems with analysis, procedure, argumentation, the rules of
the event, whatever. At 25, you're competent for the tournament. A 26-27
reflects generally good analysis, but with one serious problem (i.e.,
coverage, application of V/VC, whatever). A 28 means the analysis was very
good overall, with at least one piece of exceptional analysis, but one or
more smaller problems. A 29 means consistently great skills with minor
problems, and a 30 indicates a performance I would rate as the best at the
tournament. I'm not one of these never-give-a-30 judges; nor am I the kind
of judge who awards them frequently.
III. General Comments
Okay, here's a grab-bag (for those of you still reading) of miscellaneous
issues and things applying in the debate round:
1. Flow games. OK, this happened in a round recently. NEG gives a
micro-case and puts out nearly 5 minutes of responses on the AFF. 1AR
answers the whole block. NR drops a bunch of the AFF answers. In this
case, I'm probably going to vote AFF, all other things being equal. This is
the "If you're going to shoot at the king, you'd better make sure you don't
miss" principle.
2. "EXTEND this card." Bleah. Hey, if the Neg's responses really are
crappy, then feel free to show how your original argument still stands,
impact, and extend the card. But just saying "Extend the Matsuda card" 10
times in the 1AR is worthless. Have we come full circle to the point where
the weakest novice crutch (rereading one's own case in rebuttals) is now a
winning strategy?
Evidence plays a role in an argument -- see above. But just because a
specific card is uncontradicted doesn't mean that the warrant or link hasn't
been challenged, or that the impact isn't already outweighed, or what have
you.
In short: extend the analysis, not the card.
3. One-contention affirmatives. I don't understand this strategy, and I
don't like it. I like it even less when the contention tagline is a totally
worthless statement like, "The Affirmative is true." This is just a pet
peeve, not an RFD.
4. Jargon. I know it, and I'm resigned to accept it. That being said, use
it correctly. If you label something a 'turn' in the round, it better darn
well be a turn. If you say, the 'impact' is X, the impact better in fact be
X. If A is the 'criterion' to B, make sure it really is. And so on.
Similarly, don't lie about drops or cross-ex agreements.
IV. Disclosures
Come find me, along with your opponent, after the round. I'll gladly reveal
decisions, go over the flow with you, critique arguments, etc., if that's
what you want.
Feel free to ask anything here, too.
-Andrew Torrez
Catonsville HS
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.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
|
