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

A Chance to Start a New Dialogue on Judging (fwd)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steven Hunt <hunt@lclark.edu>
To: Lisa Lundquist <LCL4Debate@AOL.COM>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list NDT-L <NDT-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject: A Chance to Start a New Dialogue on Judging



I think the differences between judges in NDT and CEDA both internally 
and between the two groups ought to spark a new dialogue on what judges 
should be doing.

I have always hated tabula rasa because I don't think any judge can be 
absolutely unprejudiced and unbiased and not intervene at all. Tabula 
rasa says the students should set the judging paradigm and criteria and 
they don't have time to do that and debate the issues. They may disagree 
then the judge has to pick one. Also, I have minimum standards for what 
an argument is. There has to be data and warrant for claims not just 
claims. There has to be some quality to argument and evidence not just 
claims and blips. I like the critic of argument or of debate models of 
Rowland and Balthrup. However, I know there is much dispute as to my 
negative interpretation of tabula rasa and positive interpretations of 
critic of argument. There is the chance for the dialogue.

I think judges should justify decisions substantively on the issues.
What is the topic? Did the debaters really address it as they should?
What are the issues intrinsic to the topic and what are the voting issues 
in the debate? Did the debaters identify the issues properly and 
prioritize them correctly? What proof (logic and reasoning as well as 
evidence) did they apply to the issues? What was the QUALITY of their 
logic/reasoning and evidence? This is the first and foremost obligation 
of the judge.

However, after judging the topic and the debate substantively on the 
issues based on listening carefully and the flow, the judge becomes a 
teacher critic because ours is not only a game it is an educational 
academic activity.  What skills did the debaters demonstrate esp as 
regards communication, organization, style, delivery, use of humor and wit?
What knowledge did the debaters show of debate strategy and tactics and 
did they properly apply same? Did the debaters tell a good story a 
consistent story? Was there real clash? Were the rebuttals real 
extensions and strategic summaries of the Aff or the Neg? Was cross 
examination really used or just a time suck? Were the debaters fair and 
courteous to one another and to the judge? WAS THERE REAL COMMUNICATION 
IN THE ROUND or was it too fast, incoherent, a spew with inarticulate 
nonsentences no pronunciation/enunciation of words?  Were technical 
concepts clearly explained. The JUDGE BECOMES A TEACHER/CRITIC IN STAGE 
TWO. The judge should give a constructive critique reinforcing good 
debate habits strategies and abilities commenting upon weaknesses and 
suggesting possible reforms.

I don't believe only coaches coach. All forensic educators coach their 
own teams and others.

All this involves views of topicality, whole resolution, counterplans, 
inherency, significance, solvency, disadvantages and links internal 
consistency REAL CLASH how fast is fast ETC ETC ETC  LOTS OF JUDGES IN 
BOTH NDT AND CEDA have been judges for less than 5 years. IT IS TIME TO 
REDISCUSS AND RESET COMMUNITY NORMS on lots of these issues and with 
cross overs in NDT and CEDA this is a perfect chance not just to grouse 
at one another and whimper and complain, but to seek dialogue to 
establish or reestablish the JOB OF THE JUDGE/CRITIC the perogatives of 
the judge critic versus lack of perogatives and what the community thinks 
of how judge/critics should do their job on the issues.

Steve Hunt
Lewis & Clark
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page