[eDebate] Shame on critics without philosophies

[David Glass]

as pointed out a few times, and noted ironically by Brent,
a very convenient place to post is:

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com

Just follow the very simple do-it-yourself directions.
If you have any trouble, let me know, or send me your philosophy and
i will post it for you.

David Glass
Asst Coach, Harvard Debate
gacggc at yahoo.com

On 9/20/07, Steven D'Amico <stevendamico at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

> > >

> > >

> > > SubjectRe: [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 > 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

> > > 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

> >

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> eDebate mailing list

> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

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

>