From: tshuman@ccp.com
Date: Mon, 11 May 98 10:07:43 -0500
To: pgkst5@imap.pitt.edu
Subject: CX Judging Philosophy
I have tried to be as thorough as possible in what follows. I don't
doubt that some will find it insufficiently detailed. When in doubt,
ask....
*TOPICALITY*
I assign presumption to the Affirmative on this issue. Negatives
who desire to win my ballot here must argue persuasively that their
competitive opportunities are seriously damaged by Affirmative's
interpretation. Inasmuch as my decision is not binding upon others,
I do not find arguments about "out-of-round implications" compelling.
Nit-picky, "time-suck" topicality challenges damage the credibility
of Negatives who run them.
*THEORY GOO*
Part of what makes CX fun is the meta-debate about theoretical
issues. Debaters should be aware that I do not consider any such
issues to be finally settled. If you have a good argument, make it.
*EVIDENCE*
Evidence in support of factual claims is generally regarded as
dispositive absent any countervailing evidence. Evidence in support
of predictive claims is not. Carded arguments regarding predictive
claims will not automatically prevail in the face of rigorous-but-
uncarded analysis. Arguments regarding source credibility and the
ultimate cogency of predictive claims are stronger if carded, but
I do not worship cards at the expense of sound analysis. I do not
read evidence after rounds; if you want cards to weigh in my
decision, make sure they are presented clearly. Overclaiming evidence
damages the credibility of debaters who engage in the practice.
*DELIVERY*
I find clarity effective regardless of the speaker's WPM rate.
I find muddled arguments ineffective regardless of the speaker's
WPM rate. If you intend to speak in catch-phrases and shorthand,
you will likely be disappointed: I do not intend to "fill in the
blanks" for *either* side in the round.
*THE CASE DEBATE*
I do not believe that case issues are "dead" in policy debate.
Negatives making cogent arguments on significance and inherency
will find a sympathetic ear. However, I do not require cataclysmic
harms in order to find resolutional action warranted. "Small, true"
cases will also be given a fair hearing.
*THE PLAN DEBATE*
I believe that Negatives too often let Affirmative get away with
murder on solvency/workability issues. I do not require cataclysmic
impacts to find disadvantage arguments persuasive. Affirmatives
should rigorously challenge the relevance and cogency of generic
disadvantages. Counterplans are a legitimate Negative strategy.
*KRITIKS*
I really wish you wouldn't, but if you must....be prepared to defend
your position analytically. Claims that such issues "must outweigh
everything else in the round" (even if carded) will be defeated by
reasonable analytical counter-claims to the contrary. In other words,
kritik advocacy has a steep hill to climb in front of me....
*DECORUM*
Incivility of any sort will be ruthlessly punished. Nuking your
speaks is only the *beginning* of my response to such behavior.
Play nice, or be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and...well, not so tall
as I used to be,
Terrance Shuman
Bishop LeBlond Memorial High School
St. Joseph, Missouri
|
