[eDebate] removing judges : the last tendrils of state control

[Kevin Sanchez]

in 'was ist aufklarung?' 
(http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/kant-whatis.html), immanuel kant writes 
in defense of a certain ruler :

"I hear on all sides, 'Do not argue!' The Officer says: 'Do not argue but 
drill!' The tax collector: 'Do not argue but pay!' The cleric: 'Do not argue 
but believe!' Only one prince in the world says, 'Argue as much as you will, 
and about what you will, but obey!'"

in 1784, kant considered the restriction on argument an obstacle to 
enlightenment, but today one wonders if kant's resolution offers any less of 
a restriction on liberty - after all, we still must obey the prince 
regardless of the outcome of our arguments, aren't we?

fast forward to the present - katsulas writes 
(http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200508/0186.html) : "The remove judges 
sanction ONLY applies to judges who disregard the guidelines for judges 
stipulated under Section I, subsection 14. This does not apply to the 
content rules. It would apply to these circumstances: 1) A judge refusing to 
vote for one team on the ballot..." ... or put a little differently, 'argue 
about whatever you like, but obey'.

naturally, this strikes a pleasant balance: the 'conservatives' in debate 
are happy that the content restrictions remain on the books (no kritiking 
without an alternative, for example) and the 'liberals' are happy that the 
content restrictions remain unenforced ( if they won't toss a judge for 
voting on a kritik sans alternative, the rule itself seems like harmless 
pomp). being neither conservative nor liberal, naturally, this pisses me 
off....  =P

permit me come at my frustration a bit diagonally - an 'axiomatic' is an 
equation that combines variables across various terrains without reference 
to fixed terms (this from blanche's 'axiomatics', assuming he knows what 
he's talking about). in an axiomatic, therefore, relations are prior to 
their terms. it's not a question of whether a postulate is true or false; it 
only becomes true or false after you fill in particular values for the 
variables, which is to say, you turn them into constants.

i'm not that into geometric mathematics actually. i only mention it because 
deleuze and guattari write (in both 'anti-oedipus' and 'a thousand 
plateaus') that capital operates by axiomatics. for example, as the field of 
journalism becomes a business, it ceases to matter whether the story is 
'newsworthy' in terms of classic journalistic standards - the story of a 
missing white womyn in aruba will do the trick just as well as the stories 
of soldiers and civilians perishing in irak, depending only on which gets 
higher ratings.

i'm not that into neo-marxist post-structuralism actually. i only mention it 
because the a.d.a. (and many others) look at debate as an axiomatic system. 
the relations are predetermined : two teams walk into a room, they're given 
equal time to speak, and a judge decides a winner. it doesn't really matter 
what they talk about, whether it's mathematics or marxism, whether it's a 
missing person or an unjust war, whether it's policy stuff or kritik stuff. 
one has preferences, of course, but there's really only one rule that's 
inviolable : the regime of W.

and how does this system operate? by a legalistic framework, a statist 
mechanism. the role of the judge is to turn the variables of a particular 
round into the constant of the win-loss. other binary logics are made to 
serve W - for example, the distinction between content and structure, as 
well as the distinction between speech and action, and so forth. in this way 
all in-round argumentation is reduced to reasons for a decision ('voters'); 
and debate is assigned an entirely communicational role: 'argue about 
whatever' as long as all arguments (or narratives or musics) conform to the 
established template. (because we don't want arguments becoming something 
else, now do we? ... definately not becoming-revolutionary.)

this is one way to look at things. there are others. one way in particular 
(not a better way, just a different way) involves taking thought and speech 
and argument more seriously, which also means opening thought and speech and 
argument up to freer play. this method follows arguments wherever they 
lead... even (gasp) outside the classroom or lecture hall or auditorium.

this is a problematics in contrast to an axiomatics. problematics neglects 
to conform to the template or to extract constants from the variables, and 
instead chooses to embrace the variables as singular events in themselves. 
and when you try out this approach, you surrender the permanence of a fixed 
point of view, making judgment impossible; so it also recognizes that some 
rounds are quite simply undecidable.

let's say a judge does everything they're supposed to do under section I, 
subsection 14 [see below]. let's say a judge listens conscientiously. she 
provides both verbal and nonverbal feedback. she discourages abusive 
language. she evaluates all the argumentative clashes as advanced by the 
debaters. she tries hard not to allow her personal preconceptions to bias 
her. she provides a thorough yet politely concise oral critique.

yet at the end, she cannot make a decision. maybe neither side really won. 
or maybe one argument threw into question the typically unquestioned nature 
of the activity itself. why can't she sign the ballot as a double-loss or a 
double-win? or why can't she refuse to sign the ballot altogether?

the tournament directors are the first to put these matters to rest: 'if she 
doesn't decide, we'll remove her from the judging pool'. and this reveals 
their role in service of the axiomatic. this is at once the limit of their 
tolerance and the beginning of their control (which seems legitimate to 
almost everyone here). so my question for everyone, but especially the 
kritiky-types :

why get in a huff about 'content restrictions' while affirming the 
restriction of all content to an anti-intellectual format?

along with kuswa, i wish that directors did less in terms of enforcing the 
law of W and more in terms of facilitating open spaces for thought and 
speech and argument. as of now this remains my wish, a longing for ideas 
that will overstep the possibility of calculation. and i wonder, is there 
really a way to extricate thought from the axiomatic model?

i haven't decided.

                             .k (kevin.sanchez at gmail.com)


james lyle quotes the relevant section of the a.d.a. rules (here, 
http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200508/0188.html) :

I, 14: RESPONSIBILITIES OF JUDGES--Judges should listen conscientiously and 
in a manner designed to promote recognition and recall of positions advanced 
in speeches and question periods. Judges are encouraged to provide verbal 
and nonverbal feedback to encourage comprehensibility and to discourage 
violating the rules of debate. Further, judges will attempt to avoid verbal 
and nonverbal feedback which degrades, humiliates or otherwise belittles the 
efforts of the debater speaking. Judges should listen to all proofs offered 
by debaters and render a decision based on the clash in the debate, 
uninfluenced by the judge's preconceptions about the proposition or the type 
of proof called for in a given situation. Oral critiques by judges are 
encouraged for all rounds so long as the critique does not delay teams or 
the judge from getting to the next scheduled round before the forfeit time. 
Judges should refrain from long critiques when debaters need to get off 
campus to eat during meal breaks. Judges must render a decision in which one 
of the teams participating in the debate is declared the winner.


and kant concludes : "If we are asked , 'Do we now live in an enlightened 
age?', the answer is, 'No,' but we do live in an age of enlightenment." ... 
sometimes i'm curious.