[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 Tue, 11 Apr 1995 tjewell@unm.edu wrote:
> 
> > About 15 years ago, John Shosky, who was debating for Colorado College, 
> > was trying hard to explain the weak link story of a disad being run by 
> > the negative (this was in NDT).  In John's 2AR he told the three judge 
> > panel, "If you vote on this disad, I want to see the source citation of 
> > the link card on your ballot."  As strong as that was, I found it to be 
> > very effective.  Two of the judges looked at the link cards, and found 
> > they just didn't do the job.  I thought the approach was appropriate and 
> > effective, even if a little intimidating.

John L. Niedfeldt-Thomas responded:

> i hope that this story does not serve as a lesson for other debaters for 
> one reason only.  it further serves to advance the position that without 
> out a card, you don't have an argument.  

It wasn't my point.  John Shosky's plea was to the effect that IN THIS
CASE, the disad lacked an evidentiary link.  It was not a response to a 
negative press, but to an unevidenced link.  Do you believe a 
negative (in CEDA or NDT) can run disads without evidentiary links? 

then Niedfeldt-Thomas says: 

>this line of thinking is especially prevalent in ndt debate.  logical
solvency arguments, uniqueness takeouts to da's, unevidenced presses of
any kind are often discarded.

Jewell responds:

Really?  Not connected to my NDT experience.

Then Niedfeldt-Thomas says:

>if an arguments is bad, or the evidence doesn't provide a warrant for the
claim presented, then explain why.  "you'll have a lot of explaining to
do" is a warrantless claim.  if as a debater you can't explain why an
argument is not worthy of being voted on, then you have failed to persuade
your critic and deserve to lose; attempts to intimidate judges do nothing
to further the activity.  

Jewell responds:

Hmmm.  I thought John was supplementing his unevidenced claim that there 
was no link to the disad with a very effective insistence that the 
judges carefully evaluate his unevidenced claim.  He was giving 
teeth to your complaint that unevidenced arguments are not given 
appropriate weight.  

As far as intimidation goes--too bad.  I think the judges in this 
particular round were intimidated.  The two that looked at the negative's 
link evidence were not in the practice of looking at evidence.  The 
intimidation very likely resulted in these judges voting AGAINST EVIDENCE 
(because it was so bad) AND FOR AN UNEVIDENCED PRESS.  Isn't that the 
result your main argument would support?

Niedfeldt-Thomas finishes with:

>finally, don't forget that most of the "bad judges" won't stick around 
to justify their decision anyway.  they will give you the old "come find 
me later" or "i'll put it on the ballot" and we all know how well that 
works. 

Jewell thinks:

This is a CEDA problem.  Every NDT tournament (except for the NDT itself
and a couple of judges at Districts) that we attended had 100% judge
disclosure and explanation/justification of their decisions.  Shosky's
technique would work especially well in that context.  What judge giving
an oral critique could avoid responding to his demand for the citation of
the link evidence? 


Tom Jewell
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page