Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'judges'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Debate
    • Help Me...
    • Novice Center
    • Culture
    • Other Forms of Debate
    • Virtual Debates and Online Videos
    • Workshops, Institutes, and Camps
  • Specific Arguments
    • Immigration
    • Disadvantages and Counterplans
    • Critiques
    • Theory and Framework
  • Evidence
    • Evazon
    • Evidence Trading
  • Community
    • Current Events
    • Thoughts and Ideas
    • Non-Debate Debates
    • World Culture
  • Regional
    • National Circuit
    • Pacific
    • Mountain
    • Southwest
    • Great Plains
    • Great Lakes
    • Northeast
    • Mid Atlantic
    • South
    • Kansas
    • Missouri
    • Texas
  • Respecting the Elders
    • College
    • Judging
    • Coaching
  • The Site
    • Feedback
    • Discuss the Articles
    • Main Page Polls
  • Archive
    • Topic Archive

Categories

  • Thursday Files
  • Affirmatives
  • Case Negatives
  • Counterplans
  • Critiques
  • Disadvantages
  • Impacts
  • Theory
  • Topicality
  • LD and Public Forum

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

  • Debate Resources
  • Coach Resources
  • Blogs
  • Videos
  • Tournaments & Results
  • Administrative Organizations

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Google Chat/Jabber


AIM


MSN


ICQ


Yahoo


Name


School


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation

Found 9 results

  1. My most recent Saturday tournament (Varsity CX at Paris North Lamar in East Texas) consisted of three debates in which neither competitors nor judges knew exactly what was going on. Why? Because every team I competed against read a complicated advocacy of which they could not explain paired with a RoB (Roll of the Ballot) framed specifically around their advocacy. The case debate was non-existent. My case was freaking drones. Now what is the problem with this? Its bad debate! If you can even call it debate. After one such round, I talked with my opponents. They told me they had been doing debate for three years (both were juniors) and that they did not understand what they had read- a psychoanalysis K. Confused, I asked why they had decided to run thee K, to which one replied "My coach said it would win, he talks about this type of stuff all the time but it goes a bit over our heads". And here we find the fault. Psychoanalysis is a complicated critical theory that is hard to grasp for even the most educated political scientists, philosophers, and physicians. So why, may I ask, do we put it in to the hands of high school students to discuss, debate, and overall butcher? My thesis is that winning has overshadowed education in what is supposed to be its one last stronghold. We write blocks and put them in to student's hands so that they win. Why? Why can we not prepare debaters to think? Teach students to respond to arguments in their way, in a logical way that makes sense to them? We must remember that it is our students who are supposed to be learning to form argumentation, not us. It seems that with the "Golden generation" of high school debaters growing up and coaching, they can't let go of the fact that its not about them anymore. This appears to be the case with judges as well. The fad of "doing work" has appeared. Filling gaps in argumentation with a judge's own knowledge or opinions is not the point of debate (YOU WILL ALWAYS BEAT THE CHILD YOU ARE JUDGING, don't worry-we know that. You don't have to prove it), a good educator should judge on whats given to them, no more and no less. Why do we tell our students they can't do something or that they must do something? "You must put uniqueness first in your disadvantage." "You can't run new arguments in the 2NC" "You must spread." "You can't spread" No, your regional biases and trends do not dictate what you MUST do in a debate round. The whole point of debate is to provide a structured round (speech length and order) while not limiting the student's creativity and argumentation i.e. if I can persuade the judge of it then I can do it. There are no rules in debate other than these (provided a few in certain circuits that dictate evidence rules and the like) and that is a good thing. It keeps debate what it is. Coaches and judges alike need to realize, debate is about the students and their education. Winning is a side-effect of good debates.
  2. I live in a very traditional portion of West Texas where no one accepts progressive forms of debate. We run simple K's for "more progressive" judges and really explain them and impact them out but they never seems to get it. In fact, we lost a very important round because the judges didn't seem to understand a basic Cap K. How can we try to make it so judges understand what we're saying and maybe make our circuit more progressive?
  3. What is the general range of speaker points at big-stick national tournaments like Greenhill and Glenbrooks. I understand speaks vary depending on the (level of difficulty of the) tournament, but is there an accepted range that judges follow? Note: This is specific to national tournaments, I know basic stuff like thirties don't happen and a twenty-five means you're a terrible person/ debater; 29 is pretty high/ really good, 29.5 is excellent/ not much you can change; just curious as to other debaters' experiences. Also, why are none of the useful, unanswered questioned asked on this site :/ Get rid of flood control on the search bar and half the questions disappear because they've been asked before...
  4. Hey all, I need 3 more slots to get to 16. I will then post the bracket. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, if you haven't yet, pm me to register! Right now- KritkallySound JulainBHS DictatorCastro Solax10 Mummyhandgrenade MartyP JaredCroitoru TheWingedDebater EndlessFacePalm Seare25 BobbyS BammyTess Aram Need 3 more to make this octos at least.
  5. I am at a national tournament and many judges voted for the other team because of their preferences and biases, however, I'm not complaining. One judge said that she voted Affirmative even though they dropped and conceded and didn't explain many arguments, and my coach said that coming out of the last rebuttal we need to articulate why the judge should vote for us. Can you please help me formulate an overview of why I, as the Affirmative, would win using my advantages? I will give credit where it is due, thank you! I'm running the Dream Act
  6. Logan High Schoo (Utah) l is looking to hire judges in for the Berkeley tournament in CX, LD and PF. Pay per round negotiable. Let me know if you are interested. Can just message me on here. Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...