[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
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

Justin Skarb
Arizona State Debate
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page