[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: ceda/ndt judging
> my top 10 reasons to dislike the "critic of argument" model:
Perhaps, a better understanding of what "critic of argument" means
would be helpful...
> 10. whining prima-donnas.
> answer it rather than dropping it and then getting indignant rather than
> taking responsibility. "coach! coach! she voted on THAT disad, can
> you believe that? how uncool! WE didn't even answer it!"
"Reverse voter - frog! They drop it" Yeah, there's classy dialectic
for you. The flip side of your complaint is the inane tendency of
some in CEDA to mutter four incoherent words and hope they can
convince lazy judges to take the lazy way out. We lost a round from a
CEDA judge off the tag, "Running T means jurisdiction primary."
Little did we know this meant we lose the round if we don't extend T.
Despite not being labeled as an RVI, the judge intuitively knew that
was what they meant.
> 9. judges who can't flow or listen.
> "oh yeah, that's it, i didn't forget that dropped T position. it was
> just beneath my notice. how stoooopid to argue that increase means make
> greater. absurd!"
> 8. common knowledge is only common.
> 95% of Americans believe in God, 87% in hypnotic trance, 78% in
> supernatural phenomena, 70% in ghosts, 68% that UFOs are visitors from
> another planet, 67% that ESP is real,... debate critics have just as
> little understanding of the world.
How wonderful that the mighty Korcok can once again illuminate us
into the shortcomings of everyone else's knowledge. Ever hear of self-
> 7. debate and argument are valuable.
> and an interventionist tells debaters that it is not their arguments
> which ought to decide, but rather the critic's imposed opinions. "that
> counterplan is abusive, so i am ignoring it. yeah, yeah, you had 13
> bullshit reasons why it wasn't that they dropped, but, you know, it IS."
How about some minimum explanation?
> 6. the average human body temperature is not 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
> although EVERYONE thinks it is, there is NO question that it is 98.2
> degrees Fahrenheit. Dr. Wunderlich made the original measurements in
> degrees Celsius, ROUNDED OFF, then converted the rounded off number to
> Fahrenheit. the rounded conversion gets 98.6, but if you don't round
> off first, you get 98.2. a dozen studies over the last 50 years confirm
> that it is 98.2, not 98.6
Korcok tangent alert! Korcok tangent alert! Has anyone noticed how
Mike is going off on tangents regarding medical research, lately?
Going to med school, Mike?
> 5. fairness is more important.
> the loopy intervention of a judge can be overturned on appeal, often
> before any harm is done. there is no such due process recourse from a
> debate critic. absent appeals, "least intervention" is fairest. Ito
> got appealed and overturned several times, and very few debate critics
> are Ito.
Mm-humm. Least intervention is a sham. People still intervene and
just use that label as a mask.
> 4. this isn't high school anymore.
> the kids are old enough to take responsibility for their own arguments
> and drops, they don't need and shouldn't receive "protection". the
> critic's "authority" is akin to that of the study-hall monitor: both
> have as little place in debate as is possible.
The critics are humans. Most of them, except you of course, are as
involved in the learning that is transpiring as much as are the
debaters. You see, we'd like to understand what those tags mean
before you force us to vote for them. Don't worry, though, it'll all
be better as soon as we can get those robots developed and in place.
> 3. the life and death of Galileo.
(And Mike wonders why we seek to impose meaning.....)
> knowledge and belief deserve more respect than the random ill-considered
> opinions of a critic gives them: they at least deserve the force of the
> better argument, even if that "better" argument is "terrible". "this
> Earth is a planet thing. come on, you don't really expect me to take it
> seriously, do you? and it IS heretical, you know..."
Korcok has no lower threshold for an argument. The other team coughs
and you better three point it unless it becomes an RVI....Some
arguments do suck. I try to listen to them. If it makes no sense the
first time I hear it, I probably won't vote on it. Clarity and
understanding are two criteria that still have room in this activity.
> 2. the arrogance is pathetic.
Boy, I've saved this line to my clipboard! How can you rail against
pathetic arrogance with a straight face, Mr. Korcok?
> so, how worried should you be if you took a blood test that is 99%
> accurate (both type I & type II) for a fatal disease that strikes 1 out
> of every 1000 people which comes back positive? how likely is it that
> you have this fatal disease? (the answer is below) but don't worry if
> you can't evaluate even this very simple situation, you are no doubt
> still perfectly able to decide whether or not A-Life is feasible...
Wow. Where do I begin? 1. Tangent alert. 2. Straw man diversionary
tactic. 3. You'll love UTSA's universe collapse impacts. 4. So, only
people engrossed in statistical logic, like yourself, are capable of
assessing problematic feasibility?
> I don't need a reason, i'm a 'critic of argument'."
> thanks for reading,
> michael korcok
Korcok, can't you even wait for your first tournament to remind us of
your vast intellectual superiority? Give us a warning, what tickets
do we need to sell back to avoid you?
> not too worried. your chances of having the disease are only about
> 1 in 11.
> to see this, consider a population of 100,000 (makes the numbers easy).
> since 1 in 1,000 have the disease, 100 have the disease and 99,900 don't
> have it. of the 100 who have the disease, 99 will test positive and 1
> negative. of the 99,900 who don't have the disease, 999 will test
> positive and 98,901 will test negative. in summary...
> 100 have disease 99,900 don't have disease
> 99 test positive 999 test positive
> 1 tests negative 98,901 test negative
> now, how many total positives? 99 + 999 = 1,098 total positive test
> results. and only 99 out of 1,098 will really have the disease. that's
> roughly 1 out 11. and THAT is how worried you should be.
> (from the July '96 Skeptical Inquirer)
Well, gee, wasn't that interesting?
Michael "Bear" Bryant Internet: email@example.com
Director of Forensics Home: 801-399-4253
Department of Communication Office: 801-626-7186
Weber State University Fax: 801-626-7975
Ogden, UT 84408-1605 AOL: MWBRYANT@AOL.COM
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page