[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)

> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 09:24:49 -0600 (MDT)
> From: tjewell@unm.edu
> To: "John L. Niedfeldt-Thomas" <jthomas@Essential.ORG>
> Cc: Issues concerning CEDA Debate <CEDA-L@cornell.edu>
> Subject: Re: The Judges Will Have a Lot of Explaining to Do! (fwd)
> 
> On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, John L. Niedfeldt-Thomas wrote:
> 
> > 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.  

Jewell responded
> 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? 
> 
Niedfeldt-Thomas responds

they need not have a specific link but they should have some generic 
directional evidence.  ie. increasing ocean resource development is 
politically untentable and this plan increases o.r.d. for the following 
reasons...  obviously, if the aff has specific ev. or arguments indicating 
that while 
generic o.r.d. is untentable, but this plan specifically is politically 
paltable, then the neg is hosed.  link stories are called that for a 
reason.  if the neg can craft a compelling story out of generic or no 
evidence and the aff cannot defeat this story, then they don't desrve to 
win.  i myself am a hardass for link specificity (evidenced or 
analytical) as well as uniqueness, so it wouldn't be hard to defeat a 
poorly constructed story in front of me  -- that evidence must go beyond 
"they don't have a link card", though.  

> 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.

Niedfeldt-Thomas responds

maybe just mine.  perhaps others can share their experiences.

> 
> 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.  

Niedfeldt-Thomas responds

the full story was not apparent to me from your initial post.  it 
appeared that he was simply saying that the negatives link cards sucked.  
if he was saying "here are the things the link ev. assumes and here are 
the reasons that it doesn't apply to us" then he was providing a warrant 
for his claim. 

Jewell says 
> 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 responds

the ends don't always justify the means.  without understanding the full 
context of this debate, my fear was that younger debaters might skip all 
the good things John was doing (explaining why the ev. was inapplicable) 
and instead just latch on to the rhetorical flourish of "if you vote on 
thsi ev. you had better be  able to explain it to me after the round"

 > 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? 
> 
Niedfeldt-Thomas responds
i am sorry that CEDA has that problem.  i believe that disclosure and 
post-round discussion are some of the most valuable teaching mechanisms 
in debate.  your argument only applies if the judge will give an oral 
critique.  the others can still hide under the "i don't reveal" banner 
and then intimidation techniques may serve no purpose.

> 
> Tom Jewell 
> 

John Niedfeldt-Thomas
Mary Washington College/George Mason University
Asst. Dir. of Debate T.A. Edison High School

now i lay me down to sleep
i pray the lord my soul to keep
and if i die before i wake
i pray the lord my toys to break
so none of the other kids can use them

"prayer of the selfish child" by Shel Silverstein

Essential Information			|   Internet:	jthomas@essential.org
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page