[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: The Judges Will Have a Lot of Explaining to Do! (fwd)
On Fri, 7 Apr 1995, Maxwell D. Schnurer wrote:
> I watched (did not flow) the round in question. IT was Biz and
> Jason from MSU against Matt and Pat from Chico. Matt and Pat ran (and
> selected down to) an Anthropo critique.
> Biza's argument was that because Matt had missed some of the line
> by line debate that it would be intervening for the judges to vote for
> the neg.
> 1. I wonder why one would ask about it?
> 2. Pretty common rhetoric in critical rounds.
> Maxwell/Vermont
Agreed. Ben Stuckard from Gonzo said pretty much the same thing at one
point in at least one of his 1AR's,( I believe in quarters, also) and I
have no problem with a debater
saying to a critic,"Look, if you are going to vote against us on spending,
part of your ballot better explain to me why you think it is unique."
That is substantive and demanding, but not unreasonable.
I was far more irritated in Triple Octos when an otherwise damn good team
from Southwest Missouri told me twice in the 2AR, that "This is triple
octos at nationals, its been topical all semester...."
I found that to be a much more blatant and unsubstantive attempt to
intimidate a critic. I guess I admire the chutzpah of the aff, but was far
more desirous of voting for Vermont after 2AR than I should have been.
Didn't, though.
Startegies to win, strategies to win. Critics must see them for what they
are, rather than being marginilized by them.
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page