[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 Wed, 12 Apr 1995, Walters Heather L wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Apr 1995, Anthony M. Penders wrote:
>   
> 
> > 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).  
> 

Cool--and I agree emphatically with everything you said above--but that is
not exactly what you said in the round.  Yes, all of your analysis in the
round is subsumed by your argumentation, but was not argued nearly so
cogently or persuasively in the round itself.  

Second of all, why would the argument that the case is `effects topical'
become less true as the topic progresses.  Maybe people were taking a
moral stand that they were sick of the abuse of the topic and they weren't
going to take it any more.

Yeah, I know, they didn't.  And, also, it would be pretty cool if some
team who advanced an argument like that and believed it would advance it
in 1N and sit down.  Now, that would force a critic to evaluate some
pre-conceived notions.

Anyway, you were winning on the substance of the argument anyway
(transportation and the port call at Camn Ranh Bay).

I agree that what you do is reasonably simple power projection--and I know
that you heard me indicate that there were probably some substantive link
positions in their box somewhere to heg.

But anyway, the national tournament should not give more leeway to affs or
to teams that have had abusivly topical cases all semester.  The reason
that I think that is true is b/c, on the flow, I have no way to give merit
to that argument EXCEPT in the way you mention, which is a supplementary
position supporting a community standard standard of evaluating the topic.
(And even THAT is subjective)--so argumentatively if the argument is
constructed the same, and defended the same, my decision is probably going
to be the same in January that it will be in March. (Since that will be
generally affirmative, it shouldn't bother people too much).  The natural
expansion of the topic and testing of the ground of the resolution are
things that occur before rounds and do not appear on the flow in any way
but as mentioned above.  Argumentatively that is whay I described your
rhetoric as unsubstantive, while I described Ben Stuckard's analysis in
quarterfinals as relating to substance, even though both of you were
putting the onus on the critic.

I understand that many critics (myself included) dislike topicality as the
last refuge of the unprepared, and give a lot of weight to fair warning, I
really try not to.  (Even though I do--at the same time, while I was
listening to your 2AR, I was quite cognizant that there were other things
to have said against your aff. and that folks should have done
research--not Vt. specifically, but everybody).
 Have I contradicted myself enough for everyone, yet?


> 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.

No. discussed above.  I hate intervening wherever possible.  (So, at the
very least I try to vote for the team that intervene less for). If I'm not
going to interve into a round, why would I intervene into my own head to
alter my standards from tourney to tourney?

> 
> 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.
> 
**************************
**************************
Actually, the first line of my philosophy read that I used to not give a
philosophy on the grounds that it tended to dictate the round I was going
to see, and since this is inherently your round I wished to not to that.

Your last paragraph is a justification for returning to that policy.  Do
you see how this makes the critic too powerful?  You should do what you
want to do regardless of anything.  I judged a team from Puget Sound this
year against SSD from Whitman and the answers to `Oceans T' were not
good--yet Puget Sound dropped out of this argument b/c they `knew I hated
topicality'--I've felt terrible for months--Here they were winning a
debate and were oppressed by me to the point they had to go for arguments
they were not winning in a futile attempt to appease me.  I feel like shit
about that.   (Whitman won the ballot) (I know `oceans T' is cheesy, but
man....)
Arguments are good or bad, and in some rounds true or false.  Attempting
to appeal to people's own weird warped view of argumentaiton from round to
round is the pinnacle of `persuasion and judge adaptation' which I find
EVIL--Just b/c the other critics, like myself, were crazy is no excuse to
take advantage of our pre-conceived notions and abuse this team from
Vermont w/ some non-topical case.

You should not be attempting to persuade, or read into your arguments what
is going on in my head.  You should either be right or wrong.

> 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
> 
> 
Right, convince critics through substantive argumentation not persuasion.  I
think what
you and Biza said were different.(Did not see round, read CEDA-L
transcripts)  I know what you and Mr. Stuckard said were not the same.
(saw round)

The amusing thing about this long post is that I think we agree--the last
line of my previous post notes that critics should understand that this is
all an attempt to win; and critics can't feel marginalized by this.  I
don't.  I tend to rhetoricize behind the anonymity of the keyboard; I
wasn't really offended by your argument-- I was confused why you spent
time on that instead of the substance of the arg. which was `you
meet;transporatation and port call'. 

I still think you're a damn fine debater.
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page