kissmycls
11-27-06, 06:54 PM
From the GGI 2006.
Jay Arntson-CSULB
Background: Parli & Policy
Philosophy: There is a line in perhaps the best show of all time uttered by doctor Christian Troy in the show Nip/Tuck: “The line that divides the porn industry and the plastic surgery is a thin one. We're both selling fantasy, aren't we?” And much like this gem of a line, judging philosophies seem to be an exercise in fantasy uniquely because I find judges violate them all the
time….so with that: Read my fantasy!
I used to have this long-winded philosophy on what I like to see in debate but found this to limit the many different styles debaters like to employ in a round. So, generally speaking, I have no conditions on what debate is or should look like. In a sense what I just typed is an obvious lie as I am fairly certain tabula rasa is a fiction predicated on preserving fairness which again is a total myth. What that means for me is that I allow debaters to set-up the round however they
would like and wouldn’t want them to conform to whatever standards I may have because honestly every year I’m surprised on what I learn from the competitors in the debate community
and to limit the fluidity of parliamentary debate I think is doing a disservice to the competitors. Feel free to run whatever theory (kriticisms, irony, fiat bad/good, counterplans, syllogisms, pic, pec, perms, topicality, blah blah blah) or arguments you want even if you think they violate my
own deeply held beliefs as I only vote on the arguments uttered in the round and not what I personally believe to be the case. Essentially, I will grant an argument weight if it’s justified/warranted and weighed with a terminal impact scenario on why I should prefer one argument over another (this is why judging philosophies are a form of pre-round intervention because I just told you what to do but don’t feel like you need to do this….maybe impact calculus just leads to epistemological genocide?). It’s also my personal belief that any debate rule or tradition can be questioned at any time as long one provides warrants on why their conception of the world is justified (you don’t have to wallow in fiat-land just because your coach/community/rules tell you so….but of course fiat can be pretty sweet too). I vote on bad
arguments all the time….not because I like them so much as the other team either completely mishandles the position (straw man, no warrants, etc) or just straight drops the argument. How
you dress does not matter to me so don’t feel like you need to perform some certain identity that preserves how debaters should look (what does that mean anyway?). I will admit that I seem to privilege critical theory debates (continental, post-structural, etc) BUT my background is more heavily invested in these areas so woe to the team that runs complex arguments in a wanky or
water-downed manner. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round begins and I look forward to watching the theater of the absurd that is parliamentary debate.
Jay Arntson-CSULB
Background: Parli & Policy
Philosophy: There is a line in perhaps the best show of all time uttered by doctor Christian Troy in the show Nip/Tuck: “The line that divides the porn industry and the plastic surgery is a thin one. We're both selling fantasy, aren't we?” And much like this gem of a line, judging philosophies seem to be an exercise in fantasy uniquely because I find judges violate them all the
time….so with that: Read my fantasy!
I used to have this long-winded philosophy on what I like to see in debate but found this to limit the many different styles debaters like to employ in a round. So, generally speaking, I have no conditions on what debate is or should look like. In a sense what I just typed is an obvious lie as I am fairly certain tabula rasa is a fiction predicated on preserving fairness which again is a total myth. What that means for me is that I allow debaters to set-up the round however they
would like and wouldn’t want them to conform to whatever standards I may have because honestly every year I’m surprised on what I learn from the competitors in the debate community
and to limit the fluidity of parliamentary debate I think is doing a disservice to the competitors. Feel free to run whatever theory (kriticisms, irony, fiat bad/good, counterplans, syllogisms, pic, pec, perms, topicality, blah blah blah) or arguments you want even if you think they violate my
own deeply held beliefs as I only vote on the arguments uttered in the round and not what I personally believe to be the case. Essentially, I will grant an argument weight if it’s justified/warranted and weighed with a terminal impact scenario on why I should prefer one argument over another (this is why judging philosophies are a form of pre-round intervention because I just told you what to do but don’t feel like you need to do this….maybe impact calculus just leads to epistemological genocide?). It’s also my personal belief that any debate rule or tradition can be questioned at any time as long one provides warrants on why their conception of the world is justified (you don’t have to wallow in fiat-land just because your coach/community/rules tell you so….but of course fiat can be pretty sweet too). I vote on bad
arguments all the time….not because I like them so much as the other team either completely mishandles the position (straw man, no warrants, etc) or just straight drops the argument. How
you dress does not matter to me so don’t feel like you need to perform some certain identity that preserves how debaters should look (what does that mean anyway?). I will admit that I seem to privilege critical theory debates (continental, post-structural, etc) BUT my background is more heavily invested in these areas so woe to the team that runs complex arguments in a wanky or
water-downed manner. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round begins and I look forward to watching the theater of the absurd that is parliamentary debate.