[eDebate] Shame on critics without philosophies

[Steven D'Amico]

My philosophy:

T and theory is a debate of competeting interpreations of what's best for
debate. I do not, nor have ever, understood, what resonabilitly is.

Ks are fun if done well. The suck when done poorly. The more specific the
better. Treat your alt like a CP.

DAs are fun if done well. They suck when done poorly. The more specific the
better. You probably need a CP this year. I work in politics, and will treat
poor and lazy polititcs DAs with much suspicion.

Case Debate: The more the better, the more warrants the better, the more
specific the better.

In the words of Gordie Miller: "They'll say something, and then we got em."
Direct refutation is good.

Summary: I like disads, I like Ks, I like T, I like theory, I love case
debate. I dislike bad debate arguments... i.e. non-specific ones with crappy
evidence.

No one should ever read the Strait and Wallace evidence in front of me,
unless they want to recieve a 25... those guys stink worse than my feet
after a van ride. Arlee can atest.

I'll see you suckas after November 6th.

D'Amico III


On 9/20/07, Brent Culpepper <brentonculpepper at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> In response to the very effective calling out strategy of getting people

> to post their judging philosophies, I have copied and pasted mine from an

> obscure website http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com to edebate. [very

> covertly titled I know]  It is not tailored to this year's topic.  Frankly,

> I don't know much about it.  If you have any questions about it feel free to

> ask Jarrod Atchison - I pretty much copied his.  Eli's post was funny......

>

>

> Here is the way I tend to view certain debate issues:

>

> Critiques/Performance Debates: I start with this because this is where I

> am the least comfortable judging debates. I am familiar to an extent with

> some critical theory but am by no means an expert.

>

> For the negative, I am much more sympathetic to critique ground and

> believe it can be a valuable tool in a 2N's arsenal. However, Critiques must

> either win that the alternative solves (or resolves) the affirmative at some

> level – If you concede the affirmative advantages and fail to call them into

> question and do not have an alternative that solves them then it will be

> difficult for you to win. That being said – certainly arguments can be made

> that would lead me to disregard the affirmative advantages. However, those

> arguments are often difficult given the presumed specificity of the

> affirmative's evidence and the generic nature of most K cards.

>

> For the affirmative, I believe that unless otherwise persuaded the debate

> is about resolving whether the plan is preferable to the Status Quo or a

> competitive policy option. I believe the affirmative should defend the

> implementation of the plan – not just the plan as some transient moment in

> time that ruptures all of international politics as only your plan could.

> There has also been an unfortunate trend among affirmatives to merely say

> all of debate is bad, rules are bad and Topicality is nothing more than the

> Holocaust reincarnated. I find all three of these claims to not just border

> but embrace the limitless abyss of absurdity. If you find the debate

> community to be beyond salvation then I strongly encourage you to find

> another activity worth your while and not continue to disrupt my ability to

> enjoy what you consider the root cause of all violence. That being said,

> debate is ultimately about those debating and not me thus I will attempt to

> remain an objective evaluator. The only time this goes away is if you ask me

> to become a part of debate or ask my ballot to send a message. If you do

> this then I will not endorse something I do not politically believe in. If

> the ballot is merely a telling of wins and losses then I will remain

> objective.

>

> This does not mean that critical affirmatives are not cool. Many critical

> affirmatives claim advantages off of a topical plan and that is a valuable

> argument choice of which I often find incredibly strategic.

>

> Topicality – Topicality is ultimately about establishing a fair division

> of predictable ground that ensures each team has access to a constructive

> debate. This means that my default is not the most limiting interpretation

> but typically a reasonable interpretation by the affirmative that provides

> the best vision of debate is sufficient.

>

> Theory – Arguments require a certain level of logical coherence before I

> will regard them as arguments and thus relevant to a decision. Many theory

> arguments fail to do this when they are blippy and ill explained.

> Conditionality is almost always ok as well as PICS, Agent CPs etc….Although

> when your back is against the wall do what must be done. Consultation

> counterplans are only competitive to me in a world where the answer is No.

> In a world where the answer is yes, then it seems as though the permutation

> is plan plus.

>

> CP/DA/Case Strategy – Sounds Good.

>

> Cross-Examination – This is a vital portion of debates and can direct the

> outcome of a decision if done correctly. Do not merely use it as preparation

> time for your partner.

>

> Speaker Points – Two major factors that can increase speaker points are

> good C/X's and high evidence quality. They can also decrease speaker points.

>

> Everything that I have said above are my biases. I don't believe I left

> anything of note out. However, remember that the object of debate is to WIN.

> When facing another team that you will need to upset or what have you – do

> what you think gives you the best chance at winning. Just understand that

> what I've written above can affect the ability of certain arguments to be

> persuasive to me. At the end of the day, remember that while for some this

> is your last high school tournament, don't get so caught up in it that you

> fail to spend time hanging out with the friends you have made. That may even

> beat out winning as your first priority.

>

> On 9/19/07, EMarlow at ucok.edu <EMarlow at ucok.edu> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Thanks for pointing this out.  There are multiple places, but the most

> > easily accessible is debateresults.com

> >

> > Don't think I was trying to waste you time with my self indulgence...I

> > really am not, but you can make up your own mind if you ever actually get to

> > know me.  Thanks for the ad hom from the cheap seats.

> >

> > Marlow

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >   *"Eli Brennan" <elibrennan at gmail.com>*

> >

> > 09/19/2007 02:12 PM

> >    To

> > "EMarlow at ucok.edu" < EMarlow at ucok.edu>  cc

> >

> >  Subject

> > Re: [eDebate] Shame on critics without philosophies

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Very informative post.

> >

> > Except that you don't provide any information about where these

> > philosophies are hosted/viewed... so on the off chance that your venom was

> > misplaced- that maybe the rules of posting philosophies are not as self

> > evident as they are for you- a judge may follow up on your suggestion and

> > post their philosophy.

> >

> > [sigh]

> > another casualty of utterly self-indulgent rhetoric.

> > eli brennan

> > umn debate

> >

> > On 9/19/07, *EMarlow at ucok.edu * <EMarlow at ucok.edu><*EMarlow at ucok.edu*<EMarlow at ucok.edu>> wrote:

> >

> > I would like to call out all of you who refuse to post your

> > philosophies.  I don't know if this is some bullshit ploy to avoid being

> > prefered or if you are just lazy, but it sucks that I have to make decisions

> > about critics without knowing their bias.  This also goes out to those of

> > you who did yours in 1999 and haven't updated it.  That's just plain

> > laziness.  Get off your lazy asses.  If you are an educator, you should try

> > to help create more educational debates and stop trying to get out of

> > judging your commitments.

> >

> > Sorry, but it sucks that I have to rank every judge at G-State and there

> > are a bunch that I don't know and don't have any way of garnering more

> > information.  This also goes out to directors with multiple judges.  I know

> > that I make sure that all of the people that judge for UCO have a philosophy

> > that is accessible to the debaters.  If you have people judging for you

> > without them, you aren't doing your job.

> >

> > Forgive the rant...If you are one of these people, I say shame on you.

> >

> > Peace,

> > Marlow

> >

> > ------------------------------

> >

> > ***CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain

> > confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized

> > disclosure or use of this information is prohibited.*

> >

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > eDebate mailing list*

> > **eDebate at www.ndtceda.com* <eDebate at www.ndtceda.com> *

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

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

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> > Eli Brennan

> >

> > "So it goes." - Vonnegut

> >

> > ------------------------------

> >

> > ***CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain

> > confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized

> > disclosure or use of this information is prohibited.*

> >

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> eDebate mailing list

> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

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

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070920/da2756d9/attachment.htm