[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Judging part 2

A few responses need to be addressed

1. Is there no such thing as a poor judge?
Yes, judges who do not keep in touch with contemporary practice and impose
   an uninformed philosophy upon contemporary debate practice need to at least
   engage in dialog with peers to become informed of the reasons for the
   contemporary parctice before out of hand rejecting that practice.  Judges
   who do not take care in rendering decisions should obviously work harder.
   Judges tied to ancient misogynistic concepts like womyn should not debate
   together, womyn should not be able to wear pants, assertive womyn are
   "bitchy"while assertive men are confident are judges that I would consider
   poor.  However, I believe much of the discussion about "bad" judges tends
   to really focus around judges who do not conform to a norm of judging
   philosophy rather than around these types of judges.  I think debate is
   always weaker if it fails to encourage diversity of opinion.  I think there
   is no one "correct" way to judge debates.  In addition, teams are often
   unduly hostile to judges who are not "bad" and sometimes not even different
   than the expected norm.  Judges who took care and decided in a consistant
   and careful manner are inevitably pilloried by the losing participants in
   almost every debate round.  My argument is that this overlooks several
   factors - multiple correct interpretations of the same arguments, the
   clarity in the debaters head is rarely the clarity of the flow, debaters
   think they already have learned everything they need to know and to not
   look at judges as a source of needed wisdom anymore etc.....Finally, what
   I expect from a judge is that 1) they have a well-defended and consistant
   philosophy 2) they take care in making a decision 3) the central focus
   of the judge participation in the round attempts to educate rather than
   play out judge ego fantasies 4) they take the time to stay abreast of
   contemporary practice and integrate well thaught out inclusion of those
   practices into their philosophies.  I also make the argument that this would
   be a great forum for these discussions to develop between debaters, coaches,
   and judges and I offered to respond to any and all posts willing to
   ask questions about debate theory or practice.

2. Should everyone make themselves available to judge elims - If there are
   people who feel that they are not a "good" judge or feel uncomfortable
   judging important rounds possibly not.  However, all individuals should
   challenge themselves to become proficient enough to judge important rounds.
   The reason is simple, the problem is never solved until we each feel that
   we are capable and qualified - tournaments need judges - coaches are the
   best place to look for judges etc.  Most of my comments were directed to
   those that are confident but refuse to judge yet complain about bad
   judging.

I have found thaqt when these discussions happen on the "l" we talk for
a bit.....vent for a bit....and then nothing happens.....If you are
not comfortable with your current knowledge of practice talk to someone
who is.....If you are uncomfortable with practices that you do understand
speak up and be counted....If you are afraid of being called names etc....
ignore the insentive responses......there are plenty of people who will
discuss things on the L in a civilized and productive manner.  Nothing will
ever change unless we can air our differences in an open inclusive
environment....Josh

Joshua B. Hoe
Asst. Dir. Forensics
Arizona State University
e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
(602) 965-5578
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page