[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Judge Intervention as Argument Teacher is Inevitable
> Date sent: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 11:55:44 -0500
> To: "Terry West" <WEST@EDU-SUU-CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU>
> From: email@example.com (Alfred C. Snider)
> Subject: Re: Judge Intervention as Argument Teacher is Inevitable
> >On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Professor Snider wrote:
> >> 3. Macro level intervention takes place outside of the context of the
> >> arguments made by the debaters (don't do this or that, as opposed to micro
> >> level comparing), thus foreclosing their choices before the debate starts.
> >> 4. AND VERY IMPORTANTLY TO ME the micro level of intervention is directly
> >> related to my role as a teacher of argument skills, as it applies the basic
> >> concepts of reasoning (induction, deduction, types of warrants, tests of
> >> evidence, exposure of fallacies, etc.) which I teach in class. As an
> >> argument teacher, I do not want to tell people WHAT TO THINK (macro level)
> >> but HOW TO THINK (micro level comparing).
> >> I address this to Prof. West because he has, in my memory, earlier stated
> >> that as teacher of argument we have much to share with our students in our
> >> role as judge. I agree, and I wanted to explain how and why.
> >I just wanted to add to my ealier backchannel that your memory is
> >correct on this point. I particularly agree with both your 3 and 4
> >I've copied above. Many of the other people I've been communicating
> >with about this do not, however. Mahoney, for instance, argued that
> >any level of judge-standard was an "imposition of pedagogy." That's
> >where I was talking about the anti-educational stance of the person
> >on the line who was at that time the spokesperson for the form of mpj
> >(pick x) being advocated. When educators such as yourself join the
> >thread, I know you care about the educational value of the judge; we
> >just disagree on whether mpj helps.
> >By the way, some of the other people responding to me on this line
> >committed the fallacy of claiming that I was ever in favor of "macro-
> >level" intervention. I think as judges we have a responsibility to
> >tell debaters BEFORE the round about biases we may feel toward issues
> >in order to let them know where PRESUMPTION lies. But I always tell
> >them I've voted for counterintuitive arguments, for cp's I personally
> >thought were topical, for crits I thought were non-unique since
> >everyone else in the tournament was engaging in discourse, etc. (I've
> >never heard anyone win RVI on t. in a round)--because sometimes the
> >other team either doesn't respond at all or doesn't respond well.
> >In sum, I think there are a lot of differences in judges. My
> >perception is that judges who have been around as long as you and I
> >have work very hard to be conscientious about our judging--working
> >hard (as you pointed out in an eloquent earlier post), and being
> >conscious of our "intervention" tendencies and reconciling them with
> >our educational goals. We can do this whether it's random with
> >strikes or mpj, and I'm glad we have found this area of agreement.
> >Terry West
> >Southern Utah
> Thank you for your kind message.
> Please feel free to post this (or something like it) for public consumption
> because I think it is important for the communiity to see us working
> through issues and ideas together in a more productive fashion. Maybe
> others can do it, too.
> Alfred C. Snider AKA Tuna
> Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
> Mail: Box 54225, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
> Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
> DEBATE CENTRAL:
> LAWRENCE DEBATE UNION:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page