[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)

> 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.  
 

I appreciate the compliment of being "an otherwise damn good team", but I 
feel the need to defend my choice of rhetoric in the 2AR you mention above.
 
I don't understand why anyone would be offended by a 2AR making a claim 
that judges should have higher standards for evaluating what a winning 
argument would be (especially when its a procedural issue) when they are 
judging at the national tournament.  Nationals is supposed to be a 
showcase of the research and argumentation that has developed throughout 
the entire semester--what is the harm of making an argument that a 
position which has not been especially compelling all semester would also 
not be compelling at the national tournament.  At worst, it is only 
stronger rhetoric for the "community standard" argument that teams make 
on topicality all the time.  My argument was at least more substantiated 
than this argument ever is.  I was at least making the claim that this 
very debate has occurred in probably more than half of our rounds and 
that it hasn't been the most effective negative strategy against the case 
(to say the least).  

Also, I believe that you even make the argument in your judging 
philosophy that you dislike that type of position because of the possible 
judge intervention.  At that point it seems like strategies such as 
saying "this is triple octo-finals"--you should have high standards are 
even more appropriate.

Frankly, I disagree that this would be an ineffective or unsubstantiated 
argument to make, especially in this debate.  I also had at least one 
other critic in that round tell me that it made my argument more 
compelling.  Other critics in the round had also made claims like "I HATE 
TOPICALITY".  This seems to make it even more legitimate that I   
tried to appeal to their personal standards of what is effective 
argumentation.

Ultimately, it is a debater's job to try and convince critics that 
his/her position is superior.  I don't know why anyone would consider what 
I said or what Biza said as offensive.  Both are attempts to urge judges 
to set higher standards on arguments, not necessarily as evil attempts to 
intimidate you into a ballot. 


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