From: Marius Mihai Hentea <mmh34@columbia.edu>
To: Phil Kerpen <pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: DEBATERS-- Judging Philosphies Please!
Marius Hentea
Bronx Science Asst. Debate Coach
Columbia University Debater (CC '00)
Judging philosophy...always get asked this question, and I am never sure
how to answer it. I don't have one per se. I am essentially a "tabula
rosa" judge who usually defers to a policy paradigm unless given
compelling reasons not to.
Judge Intervention: I HATE IT...I WILL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO MAKE SURE I
DON'T HAVE TO. This means that the debaters are responsible for making
the round easier for me. If I have to read evidence, that means it was
not explained well enough. Once I start comparing evidence quality, the
debate has transferred to my court...I will then judge the quality of the
evidence, most of the times to the begrudging complaints of one team.
Make sure this doesn't happen...explain and compare your evidence to the
other side's.
CLARITY: I want to be able to flow the evidence, not just the tagline.
That means that words should be distinct, not slurred, preferably with
some emphasis added for those important words. I will yell "clear" a few
times; after that, your speaks will get hosed.
TAGS: Make flowing easier for me (and all the other judges). Tags should
be easy to flow; i am not looking for paragraphs. moreover, make the
tags distinct (especially in the 1AC).
ETHICS: Very important. Unethical practices will be rewarded with a loss
and very low speaker points. If the other side makes an ethical
violation, the debate has terminated. The only thing to discuss is the
ethical violation (unless one side can clearly articulate why the
substantive debate is more important). Making an unfounded ethical
violation is just as bad as committing an ethical violation, so beware.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: I prefer to see good case debates. I vote on T and
kritik's, given proper explanation. The one thing I want to see is the
negative collapsing down in the block and in the 2NR. Part of the reason
negative's don't win lots of ballots is because they go for too much,
leading to poor argument development and easy 2AR's. COLLAPSE DOWN.
Besides the above, there is really not much else to say. Typical
collegiate judge: I am looking for a good story along with a robust
line-by-line. Arguments are evaluated based on their cogency and
coherence, not on the fact that some are evidenced while others are not.
Everything else is quite normal.
One last thing...Debate is a competitive activity. This often leads
debaters to be arrogant and nasty to each other in rounds. I hate this
kind of behavior. Mean debaters will get jacked on speaker points. It
reflects poorly on them and on the activity. Be nice...it's only a round.
|
