[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Aaron Fuckin Klemz
I don't want to say very much about the entire thread about "bad judges"
but I think that we must look at both sides of the coin.
First, we must ask ourselves what is a good judge and why do we only
consider a certain type of coach or former debater a good judge. Yuri
made reference to the NCAA officials as being the best. However, there
to are different perspectives on the game. Some officials will let you
do a little more pushing and shoving in the paint and won't mind an elbow
here and an elbow there when fighting for the rebound. Still others
won't stand for any of this and will be more than happy to foul out the
"good" player if they don't adapt to this particular officials rules of
the game. Seems like these same people may be the ones judging "Aaron
Fuckin Klemz" in the tripple at CEDA nationals. Is it really the judges
obligation to adapt to the form of debate that the debaters want to
partake in...not in my book.
Wich brings me to my second point. Aren't the best debaters those who
can win any judge at any point in time no matter who they are. Believe
it or not this is an activity in which we are supposed to communicate
with each other. I don't understand why we complain as much as we do
when the things we say should be fairly easy to describe to any person.
Maybe we should all try giving speaches to people in the Department that
our respective programs are located in. If we have such trouble with
these "bad" judges it seems that the best of the best would take this
potential weakness in their skills and make it an advantage. Alot of
people said Michael Jordan could not shoot a jumper when he came out of
college and people forced him to the outside...now that was a mistake.
We are not talking about issues that are so complex that no one except
debaters can understand what we are talking about. But if there is an
argument that the community runs that really makes zero sense...why run it.
Take Clinton for example. When i first started debating i tried
explaining some positions to my family but they couldn't comprehend the
political disads. WHY...BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE MUCH SENSE!!!!!!! We
stop grazing on riparian lands and that causes congress to not sign the
CWC. OK WHATEVER. In those round where you feel you have a bad
judge...go that extra mile to make sure that you make that "bad" judge a
"good" judge for you and your opponents worst enemy. Couldn't small team
x from podunk montanna say god that Yuri is never going to vote for us
b/c we don't run that clinton disad and we don't have any cards on that
GREAT alife position...what a horrible judge he is. Just make sure that
your criticisms can't be applied to you as well as others that some in
the community might think are good judges.
Final thought. If you lose in the tripple or double at nationals you
have no one to blame but yourself not the judges. If these judges were
so bad...why did the other team get them to vote for them. One of my
coaches said to me a long time ago...that the so called bad judge is your
best friend if you know how to talk to them. Now I am not saying that
judges don't ever make bad decisions because they do. Nor am I defending
the judges who know that they have a different idea of what debate should
be like and will vote against the team that deviates the most from that
perspective. Judges certainly have an obligation to the teams in any
round to express anything that could alter thier decision at the end of
the round. This is especially trure in the tripple and double at
nationals because a lot, if not all, of the judges will be new faces for
both teams. I also would like to see a form of mutual preference but not
because there are bad judges. Rather mutual preference would level the
playing field and just let people debate.
Anyway...the advocate for the "bad" judge
Arizona State Debate
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page