[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
CEDA Nats judging
I feel almost innapropriate posting the CEDA-L about something that I
generally just internalize and carry on. I have been, though, an
innocent bystander for too long, and wanted to do a little bitching
of my own.
I think it's interesting that people continue to harrass Yuri and
Klemz and anyone who rushes to their defense. Yuri's arguments
simply seem to make sense to me. I had a HORRIBLE experience in
trips this year--and I don't know if I can justifiably gripe. Being
a freshman, it's really hard to know what's out of place and what's
acceptable, but being the victim of a 2-1 which I felt wasn't
adequately explained to me (admittedly, it could have been due to my
attitude following the round), I left the tournament discouraged and
confused about the results.
Walking into the round, I felt relatively comfortable with only one
of the judges. Not knowing judges could be my own fault--either I
don't get out enough or I just don't know enough people. I wonder,
though, how to "adapt" to judges who *seem* to represent themselves
(either by philosophy or whatever) as viable options as critics. I
hate to get into semantics, but it may lend a little to everyone's
understanding of the round. The counterplan is dispositional-
- the 2AC (myself) makes 4 "no negative fiat" arguments and a
"dispositionality bad" argument with multiple subpoints and a voting
issue. The remainder of the arguments are turns (industry racist,
industry coopts reg-neg, etc.). The 2NC extends the "no fiat"
arguments to get out of the counterplan--and that's all he does.
Even if the fiat arguments indict competition (which is debateable),
shouldn't one answer--"YOU CAN'T GET OUT OF THE COUNTERPLAN--NO
MATTER HOW SILLY IT IS."? I address the issue in CX and clarify- -
for everyone-- what dispositionality means. The 2N agrees with me--
but no attempt to answer "dispositionality bad" OR the turns is made
in the 1NR. Obviously, the 1AR goes for, you guessed it,
"dispositionality bad." A clear voter is extended--and (you'll never
believe me) DROPPED in the 2NR. The 2NR analysis is, "Fine, the
counterplan's back in the round. Dispositionality doesn't matter."
The 2AR (again, me) spends about 3 minutes ranting about the abuse. I
extend, once again, the voter, and it's a 20 minute 2-1 against us.
I don't mean to rant or "whine;" if anyone has input about what I did
wrong, I would love everybody's input about dispositionality and a
better 2AR strategy.
The first judge (with whom all of the debaters seem comfortable
before the round)- - the dissenting- - says, "I agree with the
dispositionality arguments, but I vote on "threat construction," (the
other 2 minutes of the 2AR). He leaves. The first judge who voted
negative begins, "I want to vote affirmative, but..." leaving me
absolutely clueless! After a long and "rowdy" discussion about
dropped voters in the 2NR (for which, I would like to publicly
apologize. I lost my cool and that's not excusable. I was
frustrated, and if I knew the critic's name, I would apologize in
person or by backchannel), he leaves. The other critic, who just
seemed to frown at everyone from the beginning of the 1AC, got up and
left, refusing to discuss his decision. My very last question of the
critic with whom I was discussing the round was, "What could I have
done in the 2AR to win your ballot?" The answer, "Oh, it wasn't the
I apologize to everyone for wasting your time with bad college debate
stories. There are lots of things about debate I'm sure I just don't
get. Admittedly, though, the most pervasive is the manner by which
judges are selected for out-rounds. (I hate to say "elim rounds."
That sounds so pessimistic.) After playing frisbee with Jethro,
Gordie, and the rest of the Vermont crew during doubles, I have to
wonder, WHY WEREN'T THEY JUDGING????? They complained to me for not
being on panels...WHAT'S THE DEAL???
I can't complain for not picking up those two judges in trips. I
only wish I had gotten a more complete explanation--or even, "I
understand your arguments; I just don't find them compelling."
Perhaps, "I have your arguments answered elsewhere--you must have
missed it." Those statements alleviate everyone from blame except
the debaters--with whom I agree the responsibility for a loss lies.
I don't necessarily feel like it would've helped for the critic to
say, "Oops, yer right! Shoulda' voted aff." I wish, though,
that the answer hadn't been, "I understand and agree with your
arguments; but I probably just do more work for the negative."
The solution? MJP. MJP. MJP. MJP. Why? Fair. Fair. Fair.
I don't find the argument compelling that "small schools get
screwed." What does that mean? Is North Texas a small school? Why
do they get screwed? What is a small school, and why does their
input on a panel hurt them? Because their UNKNOWN? Look, if
anyone's unknown, it's ME, and probably justifiably so. I don't
think I deserved to go 6-2. I don't think I DESERVED to win a
triples round. I do wonder, though, why allow unfair judging?
Another, more interesting question that NO ONE is answering--
WHY PANEL TRIPLES AND DOUBLES???????
We're talking about 96 judges! 96!!! Guess how many get to sit out
from prelims--14!!! WHAT??? Why not simply use 32 judges? 32.
Surely this community could find 32 people who understand
Thanks to Yuri and Bear and everyone else who makes sense--no matter
how hostile you may appear. I'm sorry for wasting your bandwidth,
and I'm doubly sorry for whining. I just think the point needs to be
NO ONE DESERVES BAD JUDGES. Not even bad debaters.
"The red-headed frosh"
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page