cheesewright
02-03-09, 05:16 PM
Kyle Cheesewright
SIUC
This judging philosophy is an exercise in automatic writing. These were (arguably) the first 25 things that came to my mind about debate. They all contain some degree of truth.
1. I have been involved in competitive debate and forensics consistently since August of 1996.
2. My approach to debate is to try to evaluate debate rounds fairly, based on the narratives constructed in the debate. I currently track those narrative constructions through a traditional “flow” based method, though I am interested in finding an alternative mechanism, nothing else has quite clicked for me.
3. I don’t believe in absolutes. That’s as true for judging philosophies as it is for metanarratives.
4. I believe that the story of the debate is undervalued by the debaters: both teams are trying to construct an explanation of why they offer me a better vision of the world, but they do this almost exclusively through extending sentence blurbs, and leave it to me to put together how those sentences interact. The more comprehensive and complete your story is, the more likely you are to win.
5. “Pieces of Paper” are just that. A debate round is not composed of some arbitrary number of pieces of paper. It is made from 45 minutes of words, and an arbitrary number of bodies.
6. I usually prefer impacts with a larger propensity to impacts with a higher magnitude. I make a lot of decisions based on magnitude because few debaters really appreciate nuance.
7. Being able to talk quickly is fun. Sacrificing strategy for speed makes me a sad panda.
8. I value reciprocity as a standard.
9. I have finally reached the point where I am comfortable declaring conditionality dead. Once an argument has been introduced into a debate round, it does not just disappear. It can do 3 things for you: generate positive impacts, generate negative impacts, or generate no impacts. Kicking a position means that you have maneuvered an argument to the point where you believe it generates no impacts. Both teams may not agree on this characterization.
10. Things said in Points of Information are indeed part of debate.
11. I miss metaphorical resolutions like an amputated limb. On cold days, I can still feel them tingle.
12. I think that the pre/post fiat debate is an oversimplified way of trying to argue that we should prefer impact claims with a larger propensity/proximity.
13. I have absolutely no clue as to what a “test of competition” is. I don’t understand why I should evaluate an advocacy option that is not something I should vote for in a round. I will assume your permutation is advocacy unless you say something else. If you say something else, I need to know what you expect me to do with that thing.
14. Bias is unavoidable. That does not mean that I am a machine that churns out the same product every time based on my bias.
15. Examples = Evidence. And not the kind that isn’t allowed in Parli.
16. If you are going for two arguments that contradict in the rebuttals, my head might explode. That would be sad for me, and you will be expected to clean it up. That would be sad for you.
17. If you are running arguments that contradict in your constructive . . . I really don’t think that you have all your cylinders running. This may not affect the outcome of the round, but it will affect the outcome of my speaker points. This assumes you are not arguing that contradictions are good—if you are, you might want to spend some time thinking about what that really means (for both teams, and your judge).
18. I will never be a policy maker. Academia is where I am comfortable. I like to think of myself as a human being.
19. I do not believe that cross-applications are the same thing as new arguments.
20. Debate as an objective flow game is a lie that debaters tell each other to feel more comfortable in the chaos. I am not very interested in this kind of pillow talk.
21. I am a fairly critical person. This means that I like to think about stuff, and what that stuff means. That does not mean that I blindly dislike things.
22. I try to be self-reflexive about the decisions that I make in a debate round. I will respect you more if you are willing to call me out when you think I have done something incorrectly. I will really R.E.S.P.E.C.T. you if you do so that in a way that is humble and self-reflexive as well.
23. I don’t believe that resolutions mean any one thing. The cool thing about words is that they mean so much.
24. I like emotion in and about debate. I prefer it when that emotion isn’t hatred.
25. Points of Order are important to call. Not every new argument needs a point of order. If you find yourself calling a ridiculous number of them, that probably says something about the debate that has occurred. As a thinking human being, I know that as well.
SIUC
This judging philosophy is an exercise in automatic writing. These were (arguably) the first 25 things that came to my mind about debate. They all contain some degree of truth.
1. I have been involved in competitive debate and forensics consistently since August of 1996.
2. My approach to debate is to try to evaluate debate rounds fairly, based on the narratives constructed in the debate. I currently track those narrative constructions through a traditional “flow” based method, though I am interested in finding an alternative mechanism, nothing else has quite clicked for me.
3. I don’t believe in absolutes. That’s as true for judging philosophies as it is for metanarratives.
4. I believe that the story of the debate is undervalued by the debaters: both teams are trying to construct an explanation of why they offer me a better vision of the world, but they do this almost exclusively through extending sentence blurbs, and leave it to me to put together how those sentences interact. The more comprehensive and complete your story is, the more likely you are to win.
5. “Pieces of Paper” are just that. A debate round is not composed of some arbitrary number of pieces of paper. It is made from 45 minutes of words, and an arbitrary number of bodies.
6. I usually prefer impacts with a larger propensity to impacts with a higher magnitude. I make a lot of decisions based on magnitude because few debaters really appreciate nuance.
7. Being able to talk quickly is fun. Sacrificing strategy for speed makes me a sad panda.
8. I value reciprocity as a standard.
9. I have finally reached the point where I am comfortable declaring conditionality dead. Once an argument has been introduced into a debate round, it does not just disappear. It can do 3 things for you: generate positive impacts, generate negative impacts, or generate no impacts. Kicking a position means that you have maneuvered an argument to the point where you believe it generates no impacts. Both teams may not agree on this characterization.
10. Things said in Points of Information are indeed part of debate.
11. I miss metaphorical resolutions like an amputated limb. On cold days, I can still feel them tingle.
12. I think that the pre/post fiat debate is an oversimplified way of trying to argue that we should prefer impact claims with a larger propensity/proximity.
13. I have absolutely no clue as to what a “test of competition” is. I don’t understand why I should evaluate an advocacy option that is not something I should vote for in a round. I will assume your permutation is advocacy unless you say something else. If you say something else, I need to know what you expect me to do with that thing.
14. Bias is unavoidable. That does not mean that I am a machine that churns out the same product every time based on my bias.
15. Examples = Evidence. And not the kind that isn’t allowed in Parli.
16. If you are going for two arguments that contradict in the rebuttals, my head might explode. That would be sad for me, and you will be expected to clean it up. That would be sad for you.
17. If you are running arguments that contradict in your constructive . . . I really don’t think that you have all your cylinders running. This may not affect the outcome of the round, but it will affect the outcome of my speaker points. This assumes you are not arguing that contradictions are good—if you are, you might want to spend some time thinking about what that really means (for both teams, and your judge).
18. I will never be a policy maker. Academia is where I am comfortable. I like to think of myself as a human being.
19. I do not believe that cross-applications are the same thing as new arguments.
20. Debate as an objective flow game is a lie that debaters tell each other to feel more comfortable in the chaos. I am not very interested in this kind of pillow talk.
21. I am a fairly critical person. This means that I like to think about stuff, and what that stuff means. That does not mean that I blindly dislike things.
22. I try to be self-reflexive about the decisions that I make in a debate round. I will respect you more if you are willing to call me out when you think I have done something incorrectly. I will really R.E.S.P.E.C.T. you if you do so that in a way that is humble and self-reflexive as well.
23. I don’t believe that resolutions mean any one thing. The cool thing about words is that they mean so much.
24. I like emotion in and about debate. I prefer it when that emotion isn’t hatred.
25. Points of Order are important to call. Not every new argument needs a point of order. If you find yourself calling a ridiculous number of them, that probably says something about the debate that has occurred. As a thinking human being, I know that as well.