[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
A Chance to Start a New Dialogue on Judging (fwd)
- To: CEDA <email@example.com>
- Subject: A Chance to Start a New Dialogue on Judging (fwd)
- From: Steven Hunt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steven Hunt <email@example.com>
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.
Lewis & Clark
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page