Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 08:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alex Weaver <weave26ld@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: ld-l@europe.std.com
To: ld-l-digest@world.std.com
Subject: Alex Weaver Judging Philosophy - pretty long
Before I share my judging philosophy, I would like to
reiterate how important it is that other people also
post their own philosophies on the ld-l. It may take
a little of your time, but in order to avoid
situations like the one being discussed right now, I
feel that sacrificing the little time it takes to post
is worth it.
That said...
Alex Weaver
Assistant LD Coach - WDM Valley
Judging Philosophy
I am as much of a tabula rosa judge as I can be. I
can handle any debating style you choose to use, from
"dueling oratories" to the spread and everything in
between. I try to avoid intervention as much as I
can. I'd like to be able to say that if you win the
round, I'll pick you up, but of course who 'wins' the
round is subject to interpretation. That said, some
guidelines need to be set up as to how I make my
decision.
HOW TO PICK UP MY BALLOT
1) Impact. Too often I find myself staring at the
flow with a bunch of arguments on both sides that
aren't impacted well or simply ignore the actual
argumentation that is happening on the flow. Put
simply, tell me which of your arguments are important
and why. Do it before the 2AR. I want to hear that
the extension of your contention 2 sub A is the most
important argument in the round right when you extend
it. This puts perspective on all the rest of the
argumentation in the round.
2) Value/Criterion. The roles of the value and
criterion is an important one in debate, and there are
differing schools of thought on what exactly those
roles are. Let me give you my perspective. The value
premise is the big, overarching argument the
resolution is trying to achieve. Ultimately it should
be achievable to both the aff and the neg. I think
the best debates come when both sides agree on a value
and argue about who achieves it better. The
criterion, however, is something that can be a little
biased toward your side of the resolution, because it
is the magnifying glass through which you as the
affirmative or as the negative look at the value. It
is your perspective, so to speak. Therefore, all of
your argumentation ought to link to your value through
your criterion. Moreover, your criterion becomes the
most important thing in your case because without it,
you can't put any perspective on any of your
argumentation.
3) Links. Links are very important to the structure
of any debate round. Not only does your case have to
be well linked to your criterion, but your rebuttals
do as well, obviously. I just don't give as much
weight to arguments that aren't well linked or
impacted as I do to those that are.
4) Harms/weighing. To be honest, nearly every debate
that I've participated in boils down to a harms debate
in the end, so I think it's important for me to talk
about. I think that in the end, the impacting and
weighing of the harms is more important than the harms
itself. If I am presented with fifty harms that
aren't well impacted, or just don't matter to me all
that much versus one harm that is hugely impacted and
is very important to the round, I'll vote for the side
that impacts and weighs harms well every time. Thus,
sometimes it may seem like you are winning the harms
debate, and it may even seem like you are winning the
flow, but if you don't impact well and don't weigh the
harms out for me, you really aren't winning the round.
HOW TO DROP MY BALLOT
There really aren't many rules I have as far as
dropping people on face are concerned. In fact, I
never ever drop people just because I don't like their
style, or argumentation, or whatever. I vote on
argumentation in round; I vote on impacts. Unethical
behavior in rounds can be dealt with with speaker
points. However, the W is something that really ought
not be influenced by people just kind of going "I
don't like your style, you lose..."
SPEAKER POINTS
HOW TO GET GOOD SPEAKS
I try to give speaker points out the way teachers
would give out grades, using the following formula:
30=A+
29=A
28=B
27=C
26=D
25=F
I think that this method of giving out speaker points
is a good one, it has done well for me in that when I
look at the tab sheets after a tournament, I seem to
be right in the middle of the road for speaks. I am
neither a point scrooge nor a point fairy.
Speaker points are, in my view, a measure of how
persuasive you are to me. This justifies low point
wins and things like that. If you win the flow but
just spread your opponent and things like that, you
will get the W from me, but because you weren't very
persuasive, you won't get good speaks. Maybe you'll
get a 27. Maybe lower. Conversely, if you just lose
the argumentation but you still spoke very
persuasively, you will lose the round but will get
good speaks. Speaker points ought to be totally
separate from the W/L column in debate. Most of the
time, they coincide. Sometimes, they ought not.
HOW TO DROP SPEAKS
Unethical behavior is something I frown severely upon
in a round. Debate is, after all, an educational
activity and a school one as well. Instead of trying
to win all the time, sometimes we ought to step back
and look at exactly what kinds of things we are doing
in order to pick up the coveted W. Here are a few
examples of unethical behavior in rounds:
1. Lying. (Saying that your opponent dropped
something when they clearly did not.)
2. Swearing. (On this current topic, people actually
use hate words as an example of hate speech.)
3. Belligerency in Cross-ex.
There are a lot of other things, but those really are
my pet peeves.
I think ethical behavior is extremely important in a
debate round, and as such will punish unethical
behavior with an automatic two point deduction in
speaks.
Don't misinterpret me, I don't want you coming into
the round fearing for your life or anything. It is
rare, if ever, that I actually am forced to deduct
speaks. But if you're thinking of dropping the n-bomb
in a round that I'm judging, think again.
DISCLOSURE AND ORAL CRITIQUES
Debate is an educational activity, and I think that
everyone should do all in their power to maximize that
education. Also, during a tournament, all competitors
want to know what they need to improve on or what they
need to emphasize more in order for them to do well in
the tournament they are competing in. For both of
these reasons, I disclose my decision after every
debate round unless one of the debaters requests me
not to. This is because I simply am incapable of
giving a good oral critique without disclosing. Too
often debaters get orals that consist of "Good job,
good rebuttal..." and nothing more. That just is not
educational. Instead, what needs to be done is an
overview of the argumentation in round, an evaluation
of what arguments mattered in my decision and why, and
ultimately a RFD that both debaters understand. This
doesn't happen on the ballot. Sometimes, especially
with my messy handwriting, debaters can't even read
the ballot, much less glean educational material from
it.
To sum it all up, I consider myself to be a pretty
good judge. I am as tabula rosa as you can get, and I
give pretty good speaks. I recognize debate as the
educational activity that it is, and ultimately, I
(hopefully) pick up the right person. I look forward
to seeing you all at tournaments in the future.
Keep it real.
Alex Weaver
Assistant LD Coach
WDM Valley High School
__________________________________________________
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
|
