From: "Joshua A. Gonzalez" <gonzalez@umich.edu>
To: Phil Kerpen <pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: If I judge you
Judging Philosophy for Josh Gonzalez
I am a firm believer in the idea that arguments and issues are best left
to debaters. Admittedly, there are certain preferences which I hold
toward particular arguments and styles or argumentation. However, I do
the best job I can to put them aside. Kritiking,
conditionality/dispositionality, topicality, procedural abuse args, etc.,
are all issues that ought to be hashed out by the debaters. If you win an
argument that I should vote on something, I generally will. I tend toward
the "line-by-line", but that's becoming a meaningless phrase. To me, it
means that a dropped argument is a conceded argument is a truth, insofar
as the round is concerned. Don't try and push the envelope, though.
Stupid stuff just doesn't fly.
As far as a paradigm/analog for my decsion making process, I guess I'm a
policy maker by default. That means I compare policies at th end of the
round, aff policy and neg policy. Make what you will of that statement.
Most important assumption you should have prior to the round is that I am
a complete and total moron. So you should probably think about giving a
decent last rebuttal. Which means that you should make arguments, instead
of pulling tag lines, and give me a reason for a decision.
I can flow, although I may not be able to flow you. If I can't, I'll say
"clear". Translation: either clear up, slow down, or both. If it's not
on my flow, it's not in the round. If I couldn't understand the card,
don't expect me to call for it. I don't necessarily have to be able to
write all of the card body during your speech, but I figure that I should
be able to understand it. Clipping cards or underlining out articles and
conjunctions gets you max points of 25. I should be able to hear
sentences in them. This is really startig to piss me off this year. I've
heard a ton of teams do it, and I'm fed up. If I think you're doing it,
I'm gonna time your cards, and make you read them after the round. If you
can't do it, don't expect friendly points.
Nothing is barred from the round, excepting the obvious examples of
blatantly racist, misogynist or homophobic remarks. Such practices
simply are not allowed, you will lose the round, you will get BAD speaks,
and there is no arguing with this policy. Sorry, folks, I intervene here.
May God help you if my name appears next to yours on a schematic.
(kidding)
Josh Gonzalez
Asst Dir, Holland Debate, Michigan.
|
