Jump to content
jsmith36

Ideal paradigm

Recommended Posts

I guess that makes me hated? I am not afraid to gives zeros.

Most of the tournaments I judge impose minimums between 16 and 20 points, but I've given the minimum a handful of times when I thought it was warranted. On the flip side, I award maybe four to six 30's in a season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read every post in this thread so I apologize if someone has already posted this, but I think Calum Matheson's judge philosophy puts it well:

 

Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law. I don’t care about the content of your arguments. All styles of debate can be done well or done poorly. Very little offends me. If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a terrible advocate of your cause and you should lose. Don’t cry about stuff; “it makes me sad†is not a compelling impact. If it’s so wrong and you’re so right, then it should be easy for you to win. Is that really too high a bar? If so, then I have a 27 here for you. Do you like it? I made it myself. Just for you.

 

I think that the bar for answering the argument that racism is good is obviously very low and if you can't do that, you should lose. That's not some moral condoning of racism, that's just the judge saying, you need to become more persuasive in arguing against racism because in the real world, you can't just tell racists to stop being racist, you might have to use some logos to defeat their arguments.

 

I feel like, if a team is rolling with the "racism good" arg throughout a tournament, sure, they will beat that one bad team, but they'll lose to every other decent team and go 1-6. That means they're still disincentivized to say racism good.

 

To be fair, Calum is a dick of a human being who gives absolutely no fucks about anyone or anything other than himself. He's also a transhumanist, so his position may be altered by that. Just because one judge has one particular philosophy does not mean that all judges should adhere to that philosophy. Mine says don't say racism good, it's not an argument and I won't evaluate it. You won't lose the round for it, but you will lose speaker points and I will not evaluate the argument regardless of its status as 'dropped'.

 

Also, Kevin: The way I run Lacan is not racism good. It's that we shouldn't kill racists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intellectually, I sympathize with Chaos but at my gut (and increasingly my mind) I sympathize with mld, whom I respect immensely. In that vein, I think I see a compromise between the two positions in the meaning of the term "argument".

 

I have yet to see an argument that could prove to me that blacks are inferior to whites. Arguments entail more than a claim; the basic minimum for an argument is a claim and then some sort of warrant or proof. In that sense, to be an argument, there has to be some warrant that demonstrates the claim. In that sense, the argument (not just the claim, but the ARGUMENT) that "blacks are inferior to whites" does not exist. I do not mean that there exist arguments yet I reject them; I mean, there is no biological or scientific data to prove such an argument true. I also do not believe the possibility for such data to exist. I admit, if someone were able to show me repeated, consistent, credible, and accurate data that logically entailed the conclusion that "blacks were inferior to whites", I would be forced to adopt that position. So should anyone. But I do not believe such data exists; and more importantly, such data does not have the possibility to exist, because it is false.

 

This eliminates the question of intervention; judges are only obliged not to reject ARGUMENTS, not claims - that's the "bleep bloop brontosaurus" example from Ian earlier. There is no warrant (and honestly, no clear claim) here - this means an argument hasn't been levied, which is why the judge can discard it. But when a team levies an argument, that argument should be evaluated.

 

I admit that this 'bridge' would still imply judges should evaluate offensive yet "warranted" arguments like racism key to hege; but the offensive nature of this argument is blunted because the team running it can tacitly (or even explicitly) recognize that racism is wrong, but that breaking it down has harms. The argument is still offensive, but significantly less so because of its ability to still recognize racism as wrong. That said, I will echo the sentiment that any team worth their W should be able to handle a "key to heg" argument easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to see an argument that could prove to me that blacks are inferior to whites. Arguments entail more than a claim; the basic minimum for an argument is a claim and then some sort of warrant or proof. In that sense, to be an argument, there has to be some warrant that demonstrates the claim. In that sense, the argument (not just the claim, but the ARGUMENT) that "blacks are inferior to whites" does not exist. I do not mean that there exist arguments yet I reject them; I mean, there is no biological or scientific data to prove such an argument true. I also do not believe the possibility for such data to exist. I admit, if someone were able to show me repeated, consistent, credible, and accurate data that logically entailed the conclusion that "blacks were inferior to whites", I would be forced to adopt that position. So should anyone. But I do not believe such data exists; and more importantly, such data does not have the possibility to exist, because it is false.

I think this idea, while certainly tempting, runs into some problems when you consider that ambiguous terms like "better," "inferior," "superior," etc. are not difficult to warrant in some way. It is impossible to consider all existing data in a debate round (or even in a real-world debate without time limits), the debaters must select a subset of that data to make their argument and, accordingly, establish a framework by which their evidence leads to victory.

 

Say I present evidence that white students have better graduation rates than black students and also claim that a group's graduation rates indicate its relative superiority/inferiority (because graduation is linked to intelligence, future success/income/power, and future stable families). My opponents do not respond. Do I win the argument that whites are superior to blacks in that scenario? Under the framework I offered--which went unrefuted--I do win because I presented the graduation-rate evidence. But is the judge bound to flow that argument my way under your philosophy? It has a claim (whites are superior to blacks), a warrant (graduation rates indicate superiority), and proof (white graduate rates are significantly higher).

 

Under my philosophy, the judge is not required to check his or her humanity or critical judgment at the door, so they are able to think (rightly) that one graduation-rate dataset (even if unchallenged) is not sufficient to prove a broad definition like "superior." In this case, I think the judge should look skeptically at the warrant that a group's "superiority" is defined solely by graduation data and should not accept that warrant blindly. If the judge, based on everything that is presented in the round (but retaining his or her general faculties and moral sense), is not persuaded that the warrant is strong enough to support the argument, then the judge should reject the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My framework, then, for avoiding nihilism essentially follows Rorty: 1) I have convictions and beliefs. 2) I recognize that justification for these convictions and beliefs will inevitably be circular because there is no god’s-eye-view by which to definitively adjudicate competing claims. 3) Therefore, I must assume an ironic position with regards to these convictions and beliefs, not because I lack the courage to defend them, but because all claims are, in this view, necessarily provisional.

 

I find this extremely interesting. Do you have a cite, or at least a general idea where I might find more of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Under my philosophy, the judge is not required to check his or her humanity or critical judgment at the door, so they is able to think (rightly) that one graduation-rate dataset (even if unchallenged) is not sufficient to prove a broad definition like "superior." In this case, I think the judge should look skeptically at the warrant that a group's "superiority" is defined solely by graduation data and should not accept that warrant blindly. If the judge, based on everything that is presented in the round (but retaining his or her general faculties and moral sense), is not persuaded that the warrant is strong enough to support the argument, then the judge should reject the argument.

 

If I am understanding you correctly, this is basically how I handle drops in general. I extend the full implication of an argument only to the extent of the strength of the original warrant. This sometimes irritates debaters when, for instance, one team drops a solvency take-out and the other team assumes this translates into zero solvency (when, at best, the original argument was a tiny mitigater). It also allows me to ignore arguments that were never warranted in the first place, e.g., little voters and reverse voters that bad high school debaters love to try bury in the flow without ever giving a coherent reason as to why it should warrant my ballot.

 

I find this extremely interesting. Do you have a cite, or at least a general idea where I might find more of this?

 

Sure. I was cribbing from the first section of Rorty's Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, a sort of summing up for the general reader some of the implications of the philosophical work he had done over the previous decade (Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature and Consequences of Pragmatism)-- all essentially a very idiosyncratic reading of John Dewey's pragmatism as viewed through the lens of late Wittgenstein, a sort of synthesis of both analytic and continental traditions (especially Heidegger and Derrida).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am understanding you correctly, this is basically how I handle drops in general. I extend the full implication of an argument only to the extent of the strength of the original warrant. This sometimes irritates debaters when, for instance, one team drops a solvency take-out and the other team assumes this translates into zero solvency (when, at best, the original argument was a tiny mitigater). It also allows me to ignore arguments that were never warranted in the first place, e.g., little voters and reverse voters that bad high school debaters love to try bury in the flow without ever giving a coherent reason as to why it should warrant my ballot.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm advocating. The judge has the power (and the duty) to apply different weight to different arguments based on how persuasively they are warranted and evidenced. However, I extend that to allowing the judge to assign no weight to arguments that the judge finds wholly unpersuasive, even if there is no rebuttal. So if the judge is unpersuaded by a racism good argument, then he or she is free to disregard the argument completely. Does your philosophy extend that far, or must all arguments be assigned some weight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually really like MLD's way of handling drops, except I wouldn't extend it to the point where I ignore arguments that don't persuade me even in the absence of a rebuttal. I think I'll use that.

 

To be fair,

 

Calum is a dick of a human being who gives absolutely no fucks about anyone or anything other than himself.

These two phrases don't belong in the same sentence.

 

Edit: I've actually never met the guy, so there's a slight chance that this the phrases do belong together, but I really doubt that there's anyone on the face of the planet who can fairly be called that selfish. Maybe I'm just naive.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually really like MLD's way of handling drops, except I wouldn't extend it to the point where I ignore arguments that don't persuade me even in the absence of a rebuttal. I think I'll use that.

 

 

 

 

These two phrases don't belong in the same sentence.

 

Edit: I've actually never met the guy, so there's a slight chance that this the phrases do belong together, but I really doubt that there's anyone on the face of the planet who can fairly be called that selfish. Maybe I'm just naive.

 

You have to meet Calum. He was my debate coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually really like MLD's way of handling drops, except I wouldn't extend it to the point where I ignore arguments that don't persuade me even in the absence of a rebuttal. I think I'll use that.

 

 

 

 

These two phrases don't belong in the same sentence.

 

Edit: I've actually never met the guy, so there's a slight chance that this the phrases do belong together, but I really doubt that there's anyone on the face of the planet who can fairly be called that selfish. Maybe I'm just naive.

 

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Matheson%2C+Calum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...