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

Let your boss "judge" a debate, not "watch" a debate

Here is my solution. I think if you agree with my point, you will have to
also concede that modern academic debate, as currently practiced, is doing a
great job of preparing critically trhinking students to succeed in that "real
world" place people keep referring to (as if the world of CEDA isn't "real").

Have two medium to excellent teams debate each other. Give your President or
Dean or Department Chair the ballot and send them in to judge the debate.
Make sure to let the teams know exactly who their judge is. I believe that
the judge will be very impressed.

Why? Because debaters debate for whoever has the ballot. They want to win,
and their drive to win will cause them to adapt. I strongly believe that the
vast majority of experienced debaters can wow a lay audience if they are
motivated to do so.

I call offer empirical (if anecdotal) evidence to support this.

**Final rounds at West Point, judged by soldiers and scholars who are not
familiar with debate, have been excellent. UMKC, Cornell, and other "speed
demon" teams have done a fine job. Abusive spewtron Paul Hayes wowed them and
has specific strategies he uses in such situations.
**Prelim debate this weekend between two spewtron teams at East Regionals
(Syracuse Davis Castillo and Vermont Miller Schnurer) judged by Mr. McCooey
of St. Anselm. Mr. McCooey is well known for his fairness and his interest in
a more rhetorically accessible style. Result? 29s all around and the two
groups of parents who went to watch it as their first debate were totally
wowed at how good it was. Mr. McCooey will not tolerate the junk spread and
he is traditionally one of the most preffered judges in our region, twice
winning the UVM critic's award. Did everyone like it? Vermont coach Steve
Woods almost fell asleep and did not particularly like it, but then he didn't
have the ballot.
**How fast the CEDA Final round is depends on the panel. The year I was on
the panel (1993) the teams decided to keep the debate fairly slow. It would
be a fine example of a debate to show someone.
**Many other examples I bet you can think of. I have a lot more, but they
mostly involve my teams. When I have the ballot the round is usually not
characterized by rhetorical spaciousness.

One the one hand I have traditionally opposed the pratice of judges
"imposing" their stylistic preferences on the debate.

On the other hand, I celebrate our ability to adapt to those judges who do. I
obviously have not convinced them to judge as I judge, but failing that I
believe we still have a strong responsibility to adapt to them.

If CEDA is to be an inclusive community, it is essential for us to be willing
to adapt to all sorts of stylistic preferences. Prof. Frank is an excellent
judge, but has preferences quite different from excellent judges like Matt
Roskoski. We should want them both.

So, if you hold a tournament, give your boss a ballot, let the teams know who
the judge is, and wait for the good report.

Tuna
Alfred C. Snider, University of Vermont
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page