From: deon_garner@students.morehouse.edu
To: pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu
Subject: Re: DEBATERS-- Judging Philosphies Please!
Deon Garner
Morehouse College
CEDA 2.5 years
Years judging experience:
Judged 4 prelims and through finals at TOC in Lincoln-Douglas
_____________________________________________________________________
This paradigm is more or less the things that are going
to get you more speaker points (as it really is with any other
judging philosophy page). If neither team does what I don't
like, I cannot drop them both.
Honestly, the round is the competitors' forum to do with
what they so please AS LONG AS they uphold one of three sytems, the
aff. proposition, the status quo., or a counterplan that indicts
both. I am not a lazy judge; however, I am looking for the way
the vote that is going to make me feel confident that I made
the correct decision (i.e. the easiest way out). I do prefer
to make the best decision based on which system has the greatest
risk of solvency and advantages and the least risk of disadvantages.
The debate round is definitely an extension of the classroom.
It is a learning experience. It is not 100% competitive as their
are no "professional debate associations" or jobs that needed
debaters. So, the more "intelligent risks" one takes in the
round while I am sitting in the back the more points one receives--assuming
that the arguments are well developed and defined of course.
Specific issues:
AFF - Do what you want as long you uphold the resolution. I
feel that the affirmative is bound to representating the resolution
in some manner. Should, if defined and mechanized correctly,
does not HAVE to mean ought. However, that is something can
be pressed in the round. Moral imperatives are fine. Don't
tell me, "You have a moral obligation to vote aff . . ." and
expect me to say, "duh . . . okay." If the negative drops the
MO and shows me how the plan links to a disad and they win the
disad., evidently, that moral imperative is wrong. Also, MIs
must assume the case.
NEG
DAs - Standard tool for negative. They are not necessary; however,
when there is no solvency take out, that means aff gets the advantages,
unless turned, and they win--of course procedurals and kritiks
must be taken into account. A DA IS NOT TURNED IF THE AFF DOES
NOT SOLVE!! Many teams, even at the collegiate level, kick case
and "go for the turns." How are you turning the DA?
T - Why not? There has only been one round where I truly went
for T; other times were extend voter, dropped, easy way out,
etc. There is no reason why there can't be a story on a T argument.
There are prima facie implications of T without mixing burdens.
T is NOT a priori; it is a posteriori. A priori means prior
to experience, not "this comes first." Since words have mulitple
meanings then the only way to determine if case is topical is
after we experience it . . . after we hear it.
J - I am not sure. I've only heard this argument a few times.
When I was in LD in high school; I never heard any of my teammates
use the term or the argument. It seems as if it is a blown-up
voter. I don't know . . . proceed with caution . . . make your
arguments clear; you should be okay.
Kritik - As a philosophy major, I think kritiks are too underdeveloped
in the round. Time constraints preclude true developement of
the issues within a kritik. They are more than just value implications
that stem from Lincoln-Douglas debate. Please run them. I think
they are perfectly valid. Kritiks do not have to have impacts;
the impact is its inherent "badness" (for lack of a better word);
however, a team must weigh that against the aff. impacts. Moral
imperatives for affirmative have the same obligation; they must
outweigh whatever impact the disad(s) set(s) forth. Implications
versus impacts. Weighing MIs versus kritiks means weigh the
implications of each. DO NOT RUN RESOLUTIONAL KRITIKS! I WILL
NOT VOTE ON THEM!! The affirmative should not be punished for
doing their job. (I feel the same way about Federalism DAs--when
appropriate of course--but if the link story is compelling I'll
buy it).
CP - Okay. I think sometimes plan-plan theory is used to just
get the neg. out of CP requirements, sometimes unfairly, but
I let the round determine the issue. Alternative actor CPs are
fine. If your CP is let Spain do it and then you attack the
action of the plan, then you are destroying your own CP. Perms
are tests of competition, but can be advocated. Perm DAs and
turns are easy ways to get out of non-competition debates.
STRUCTURE - Adhere to the time limits, etc. Speed is fine, clarity
is not. I am fast, but I am clear too. Rudeness is not tolerated.
I won't drop you--automatically, but I'll nuke your points.
Open c-x is fine, as long as it does not turn into a vantriloquist
act. I listen to c-x and note important things.
Anything else . . . please ask!!
|
