bad judges

[Michael "A." Krueger <mkrueger@frank.mtsu.edu>]

For all those complaining about bad judges, some comments:

1.  You should have been at Pi Kaps.  The "Bad Judges" were those judges
that hate CEDA style debate.  I would rather have a complete no flow in
the room compared to the antagonism that was there.

2.  The debaters need to take responsibility for losing the round.  I will
acknowledge that some judges intervene to a greater extent than others (IE
I was in an elim round where one judge voted on inherency though it was
not an argument *shrug*)...  However, if a "bad judge" (which I am to some
teams evidently) misses the 14th response which was a blip non unique to a
disad (which I have) and votes for the affirmative, well...  I don't see
that as a bad judge. I am biased I guess.  There have been many rounds
where after the round during the critique debaters point to that 14th
response and say, "what about x, y, and z."  I say, "hmmmm.  I guess it
wasn't very compelling in the speech."

3.  If the debaters will take responsibility for there arguments, then
perhaps I -as a bad judge- will be better as well.  There are TOO many tag
line, blip debates (do you really need 25 arguments on every
frontline?)--with about 6 or seven arguments but 25 responses to flow.
I find the better debaters have fewer arguments that are better developed
and don't rely on the judge to catch the blipped response.  IN other
words, good teams make good arguments.

4.  I find it odd that some of the BEST teams that I have seen in the
country this year were in octofinals...  I think that through doubles only
three of the top 16 seeds went out.  That is amazing to me.  Evidently
there is somewhat of a fallacy of hasty generalization to me...
I respect Klemz/West, Lee/Shaw, and the other team alot (whose name
escapes  me now)...  but they are all beatable and perhaps not as thorough
and explanatory as they need to be.  I think that the best teams are
better at making comparisons, explaining there evidence, knowing the
scenarios, and so on.  

5.  So while people are complaining about the judges, I think it does a
disservice to the teams that advanced.  Did they advance through bad
judges too?  what does that mean?
we are a HUMAN activity with fallible people.  It is a matter of
persuasion.  If it was only the arguments, then what do we need the
tournament travel for.
send me your briefs and and I'll pair the tournament then read your boxes
and decide the winner.

alright, I'm rambling.  But I am sick of "bad judges."  My debaters say
that after 90% of there losses.  That will stop next year...  I know the
judges are not evil and trying to be mean to us.  They do the best they
can.  we need to be better debaters.  I hope the rest of the community
will do the same.

just another random bullet that tries to make a good decision,

Mike
MTSU

---

• Prev by Date: Read this for next year's topic!!!!
• Next by Date: RE: skarb, Prieto
• Prev by thread: Read this for next year's topic!!!!
• Next by thread: bad judges
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page