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

ans Yarwood/Hunt

kindness has value only when it is genuine, freely given, and not 
cloyingly common.

the social contract argument

first, i have no idea whether or not Natalie Yarwood is a good critic - 
nothing in this section ought to be taken that way.  i judged Natalie a 
time or two and was impressed with her intelligence, skill, and savvy.  
certainly my presumption is that she brings those qualities to her 
adjudication.  but sometimes it takes a while to find oneself as a 
critic -  it took me several years before i had any real confidence and 
am still questioning my abilities and wisdom.

Steve Hunt occasionally makes a controversial decision.  but his 
predilections and tastes are clearly labeled and consistent.  i have 
always been satisfied with the quality of adjudication he brings to 
bear.  he has been doing this for a long time and knows his business.  
nothing below ought to be taken as directed towards his judging.

however, the terms Ms. Yarwood sets out in her understanding of the 
"social contract" seem unacceptable.  she says:

"In essence, if I dock speaker points because I was yelled at after the 
round, I am not saying: 'Here is the punishment for not respecting me-- 
maybe you will in the future' but instead: 'You agreed to have me judge 
this round.  When I did so, you attacked me.  I did you the courtesy of 
spending my time and effort to make the best decision I could, but you 
did not do me the courtesy of discussing my decision in a polite manner 
and for that lack of courtesy I will dock your points'."

a similarly parallel reading by a "yeller" would read:

"In essence, if I yell at you after the round because the decision is a 
terrible one, I am not saying: 'Here is the punishment for not 
respecting me, maybe you will in the future' but instead: 'You agreed to 
have me debate this round.  When I did so, you made a terrible decision. 
I did you the courtesy of spending my time and effort to debate as well 
as I could, but you did not do me the courtesy of making a conscientious 
and fair decision and for that lack of courtesy i will yell at you'."

the point here is twofold:
 
1) a social contract which is defined, interpreted, and enforced by one 
party ain't a "contract" at all - it's a simple exercise of power and 
control.  what recourse does a debater have if you don't or don't seem 
to live up to your side of the bargain?  presumably you don't think that 
"grin and bear it" is fair, do you?  is "we argued well, we think you 
did not adjudicate well and fairly" sufficient?  remember that the 
losing team is now convinced that you didn't do your part of the deal - 
what do they get in compensation?

2) besides other problems argued by Meany, Bryant, and Bahm i think that 
after-the-round point deductions are a unilateral decision to ""punish" 
for a perceived violation of an imposed "social contract".  the critic 
is now judge and executioner beyond their agreed-upon jurisdiction.

decency and decorum

well, i guess some folks like the refinement and beauty of the waltz, 
some enjoy the down-and-dirty passion of the lambada, and others like 
the energy and release of slam-dancing.  it seems to me that a full life 
includes a healthy dose of each of them.

just because your thing might be a fondness for Victorian overmannered 
decorum rather than a good old Texas bar brawl, i take it that we can 
find common ground in agreeing that what gives life elegance is not 
necessarily what gives life spice, and that some of both is a good 
thing.

and while we all have different threshholds which are crossed by too 
much of one or the other in different circumstances, we can understand 
that we have those differences.  and certainly the real world, whether 
business or law or academia or downtown, has a similar variety of them.
the O.J. trial was far nastier and spicier than anything i've seen in a 
debate round, for example.  any Court TV watcher, for example, 
understands that great lawyers are not students of Ms. Manners.

my argument was a bit different.  it was that being genuine and true to 
one's self is an important ethical principle.  of course it does not 
stand on its own - it is necessarily merely a part of a complete ethics. 
and it is problematic to sacrifice that principle for reasons of 
"decorum" or expediency.

thanks for the discussion,
michael korcok
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page