[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)


Sorry it took me so long to reply but I was at Phi Rho Pi Nationals in 
San Fransisco.  As I was perusing the judging philosophy booklet, I was 
shocked at how many judges really dislike debate (as Bob Lechtreck 
pointed out to me).  They are required to judge the activity, however, in 
order to fill the judging pool.  Many philosophies were only one or two 
lines and some of them were one sentence--"I have never judged a 
debate".  This made my "tabula rasa-type" philosphy in the minority and 
some debaters had a hard time adapting to me.  While we were not allowed 
to disclose, many of them will not like my decions when they read my 
ballots.  One debater ran a value case and in response to a topicality on 
the word "should" (a smart tactic in my view) answered with one 
argument--"CEDA is value debate, NDT is policy."  This is not an adaequate 
resonse in my opinion, nor in the opinion of the negative in that 
round.  However, many other judges at that tournament would have agreed 
with her.
	The same thing happens on the National circuit even with debaters 
who share the same philosphy as the judge.  An argument is made that is 
simply not complelling.  While I often vote for arguments I disagree 
with, it is much harder to do.  Judges are human and decisions are always 
subjective, but a judge always hase some reason for writing either aff or 
neg in that little box.  It may be one the debaters disagree with, and 
may even be illogical, but there is always a reason. 
	I do not have a problem discussing my decions for any round.  
Some debaters have come back to me and apologized for arguing with me. 
In close rounds, often the decsion could be made either way but there is 
a reason why it went one way over the other.  Debaters are not always 
able to objectively see why the judge prefers one argument over another, 
even after the explanation.  I do not mind debaters arguing with me as long
as it is still constructive.  

Norah Dunbar
Director of Debate
CSU Chico

  
 On Sun, 9 Apr 1995, Jason Leigh Jarvis wrote:

> Allright the only thing that bothers me about this post is the notion 
> that you have never made a decision you could not explain, i freely admit 
> that i was not in the round, though i have seen this tactic used 
> frequently in debates and not always by teams which were losing.  It does 
> strike me that critics are (surprise) human beings and subsequently they 
> are subjective entities, not to mention the fact that not being a 
> debater, they are more or less passive observers/flowers in the round 
> until the end of the debate, at which time they are told to render a 
> "verdict". I would hope that no one can be scared in to voting for anyone 
> else, however if such rhetoric causes a judge to double check their flow 
> or look at their decision in a different light then it seems that it is a 
> reasonable tactic...
> ....besides which critic has never,ever made a decision that a debater 
> disagreed with in spite of all the explanation which was given for the 
> decision ?
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page