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

Re: New judging philosophies

if there is no subject line, sorry.  i am trying to figure out why it 
doesnt show when i post to ceda-l.

On Fri, 15 Mar 1996 zab@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote:

> 
> Bear, Jason, (and maybe Steve Herro, who's been straddling):

what am i straddling?  i am not straddling anything.  
 
> You will listen to the arguments I wish to run.  You will eveluate them
> only against the strength of the arguments my opponents raise.  You will
> write the ballot and give speaker points only based on my performance
> in the round.

how do you know what i will do?  or bear or jason?
 
> I will be happy to discuss your argument preferences on
> the CEDA-L or after the round over a beer (I'll buy if my arguements
> bummed you out too much), but not under the current threat of intervention.

i dont recall writing about how i judge...when have i even straddled 
threatening to intervene?

> Your attempts at honesty are well-intentioned.  Honest admission of 
> predispositions is key to debate. 

if you are refering to my response to the baretto\rvi post how do you 
know that what i wrote was my honest pre-disposition?  i picked a side to 
defend.  i dont think i ever wrote that i would not vote on rvi's.  i 
havent written anything about rvi's really.

> However, if you can't fight or control
> your own known predispositions, I will.  I lose because you have the 
> ballot, right?  Wrong.  The judge loses in an inappropriate decision.
> Any judge with a sense of duty realizes this and finds judging to be 
> very difficult.  An unjust loss I can walk away from, but it defines you.
> Some debaters have been known to find other satisfactions in debate 
> besides winning.  

i dont know you so i am just asking...is this some kind of threat?  i am 
not really sure how you will control sombodys pre-dispositions except to 
strike them.  i dont understand what you are saying here...could you 
clarify?
 
> Both of you know better.  Debate is for the debaters.  Even if they're
> being bad or uneducational or unpersuasive.
> 
> zack
> Cal Debate
> 
zack.  if i seem a bit defensive it is only because i am not sure what my 
part in this post is, and it seems threatening.

i would be happy to discuss my judging philosophy with you.  i do have 
ideas on what "good" debate is, but i work very hard to keep those out of 
my decision.  maybe something i wrote led you to believe otherwise...if 
so sorry.  

read my philosophy at nats.  ask around to check if im lying.  i doubt 
youll want to strike me.

peace

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