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

JUDGE INTERVENTION

	I think the vast majority of judges in Ceda at this time have
forgotten what it is like to debate.  
	It is an unfortunate fact in this multifasceted debate world that when you
debate you will be forced to debate both sides of an issue.  So all too
often, you must put your own personal preference aside and argue something
hypo style -- that you may not personally agree with.  Many debaters deal
with this by becoming immune to arguing ugly arguments.  They argue death
is good, or, that the 100,000 deaths in bangladesh are not as important as
the 2 million deaths in the Ukraine. 
	After working with John Meany this summer, I decided to try to
argue positions that where not morally repugnant--positions I could
advocate.  (This may explain to many why I keep on running New Social
Movements, because it is a way to say the media impairment isn't really an
impairment without having to argue that death is good or something like that.)
	But the problem seems to be that Judges simply are not buying
many of my arguments.  I know that this is my fault, it is my job as a
debater to adapt, but at a certain point, I can not adapt any further. 
	A judge will hear an argument and then hear our opponents answers
to it, and then no matter how many answers I will put out, or how many
drops, they will simply AGREE with our opponents idea, and vote there. 
	Rico and I ran a counterplan this weekend that has a structural flaw, it
grants the impairment. (a big damn problem with counterplans on this
resolution).  So I thought of this, and figured out a few answers to this
idea.  After they made the argument that our counterplan granted teh
impairment, I stood up and made my arguments, putting out five.  Our
opponents dropped all five reasons why the CP didn't grant the impairment.
But it didn't matter, their argument made sense to the critics -- and my
arguments could be damned. 
	Now this is just one example of the judges not wanting to even
consider ideas that they may disagree with.  
	The judges have to start judging the debate round that is
happening in front of them, and not the one that is going on in their
head.  
	Many of you know me and know that I seldom complain about judges
considering it my job to simply adapt.  I take losses with a grain of salt
and listen carefully, respecting different styles and opinions.  But I am
getting fed up of losing simply because our opponents argue something that
the critics agree with.  
	Any comments: mschnure@moose.uvm.edu
	Love to all, King Maxwell
ps. I mean this as no individual attack, but as a comment on judges of our
community.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page