student judges and grosjean

[amc17@cornell.edu (Adam Chud)]

Erica Grosjean argues:
>1.  Judging becomes and honor, acknowledging the value of debaters who
>missed a competitive break but should be rewarded for doing well.

Congratulations.  We honor you.  You are valuable.  By some standard you
did well.  Your reward is watching and learning from elims, not judging
them.

>2. The debaters take this job very seriously in the hopes of living up to
>this honor. (In fact the best argument I have heard against this concerns
>the need to check for undue pressure on the student.)

I hope so.  It's their REWARD.  Everyone wants to make the most of things
when they are given a REWARD!  Taking things seriously does not mean they
won't give in to pressure.  It does not give them the maturity to make good
decisions.  It probably leads to "repping out" as a way of making it seem
like good decisions are being made.

>3. The system fosters a community feeling among the students who respect
>eachother and help the activity be the fairest and most enjoyable
>Likewise, people are reminded of the importance of every individual's
>contribution to debate.  We shouldn't only be in it to win our own rounds,
>but to help the community as a whole.  SLO uses this procedure to
>complement its other community policies such as peer awards (which are
>often valued more than the normal speaker awards).

I can't figure out why you punish those who do clear as a reward for those
who don't.

Adam Chud
Cornell University

---

• Prev by Date: Re: spring 1996 topic
• Next by Date: re: Evidence-Student Judge Double Standard
• Prev by thread: email addresses
• Next by thread: re: student judges - evidence double standard
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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