[eDebate] my Richmond updated judge philosophy -- please read

[Asha Cherian]

the lines between positions and their status as policy or kritikal/
performative are pretty fluid.



Asha

On 10/12/07, Asha Cherian <asha.cherian at gmail.com> wrote:

> I couldn't agree more with this post, JP -- I welcome a debate in

> which a team defends why their arg is a K or performance and I would

> happily vote for them on it.

>

> You see now why teams really shouldn't strike me,.  They should treat

> me like any other judge who asks a debater to make the round about me

> and my limitations, any judge who limits argument diversity.

>

> On 10/12/07, Jean-Paul Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu> wrote:

> >

> > The point of my somewhat incoherent post prior to the one responding to

> > yours is:

> >

> > There is little difference between some Ks and some Policy arguments.

> >

> > I used Northwestern's "Constructive Disengagement" K/CP as an operative

> > example.

> >

> > Would you be more willing to vote on Northwestern's argument if it were

> > presented as a K or a CP?

> >

> > Your "Richmond Specific" philosophy seems you'd prefer K jargon....in

> > reality, what is the difference?

> >

> > --JP

> >

> >

> > At 04:04 AM 10/12/2007, Asha Cherian wrote:

> > >Jean-Paul and Paul respond defensively -- that's exactly what I

> > >believe defensive, exclusionary judge philosophies, like mine,

> > >engender.

> > >

> > >If it's legit for one judge to vote only on traditional policy args,

> > >it's legit for another judge to vote only on nontraditional args.  My

> > >judge philosophy is the logical extension of many Richmond judges'

> > >philosophies.

> > >

> > >By dialogue I mean clarity.  Within these respective roles, no one on

> > >either side of this binary has a shot at real dialogue on the really

> > >important questions, like the implications of polarized regional

> > >debate (the 2 poles are those with a record of voting on all types of

> > >arguments & and those without one).  And we can't get to the point of

> > >talking about these effects without talking about the constructions we

> > >create when we speak about positions in polarizing language, like

> > >'most kritik debate is bad.'  We have to get nuanced in the way we

> > >talk and think about positions.  For example the basis for judges

> > >grouping performance and K debate seems illegit (those who say they

> > >reject both).  If you don't vote on generic link Ks, it's a

> > >contradiction to not vote on generic link disads.  If you don't vote

> > >on link of omission performances, it's a contradiction to not vote on

> > >link of omission Ts.  If this is you, your beef isn't with certain

> > >types of positions, but with certain types of links.

> > >

> > >This is what I think right now.  And I have thought this for a while.

> > >I wrote my Richmond-only philosophy to challenge my assumptions.

> > >Other judges should seek out ways to challenge their own -- we need

> > >creative solutions to these problems.  The medium I'm going to use is

> > >the same one so many among us advocate in and out of round: role

> > >playing.  Before I try to defend why this binary is bad, in my rounds

> > >at Richmond I'm going to role-play why this binary is good.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Asha

> > >

> > >On 10/12/07, Jean-Paul Lacy <   lacyjp at wfu.edu   > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >  At 11:13 PM 10/11/2007, Asha Cherian wrote:

> > > >

> > > > To provoke something-approaching-dialogue, I'm posting this

> > > here.  Please post or backchannel me.

> > > >  Dialogue? Whatever.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >  You said this:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >  Unless the Richmond judging pool's institutionally accepted aversion

> > > for critical debate changes (in the form of amended judge philosophies &/

> > > or a productive listserv conversation), at Richmond my judge philosophy

> > > is to vote on Ks and alternative forms of debate. And that's it. No, I

> > > won't vote on any K/ performance argument; I'll vote on philosophically

> > > sound, theoretically defensible, topically intriguing Ks and alt forms of

> > > debate. And though I neither support this rule nor the implications of

> > > having such rules mandated by tournament-governing debate associations,

> > > fine, the Ks should have alternatives (ADA). If you want do some case

> > > work, negs, okay. But if neither team goes for a K or performance arg

> > > (even if K/ performance -friendly args were run), all 4 of the debaters

> > > in the room can count on receiving their hi-lo lows from me. If neither

> > > team acknowledges this judging philosophy, I'll flow the round

> > > fastidiously, flip a coin to decide the winner, give everyone a 25 and

> > > sign the ballot accordingly.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >On 10/12/07, Paul Strait <paulstrait at hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >  Hi Kevin,

> > > >

> > > > Put me in the judging pool for Richmond, for all the rounds.  Also, my

> > > > richmond-only judging philosophy is that I will give only zeros for speaker

> > > > points and I will vote for the team that I think did the worst debating.

> > > >

> > > > Since I will not be preferred, I am just going to stay in Los Angeles.

> > > > Please mail me my paycheck for judging at your convenience.  By the way, I

> > > > am totally open to dialog about this, and I genuinely think freeloading

> > > is a

> > > > good way to change the corrupt system.  Also I am an asshole.

> > > >

> > > > (I'm seriously sad I can't make it to Richmond this year, its one of my

> > > > favorite tournaments).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > L. Paul Strait

> > > >

> > > > ********************************

> > > > Ph.D. Student,

> > > > Annenberg School for Communication

> > > > University of Southern California

> > > > ********************************

> > > > Cell: 202-270-6397

> > > > Email: strait at usc.edu

> > > >

> > > > ________________________________

> > > > Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!

> > > > Try now!

> > > > _______________________________________________

> > > > eDebate mailing list

> > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >--

> > >Asha

> >

> >

>

>

> --

> Asha

>



-- 
Asha