Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Best way to judge


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 CooperSchwarz

CooperSchwarz

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts
9
Okay
  • Name:Cooper Schwarz
  • School:Andrews

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:07 AM

After dropping in octo-finals at UIL state, the last tournament I have for my career is Nats, but after that, the only way I would be involved in the debate community is via judging and coaching. My largest fear, however, is that I end up being a sub-par judge. in terms of progressive debate, I enjoy kritiks and listen to them, however it is vastly difficult for me to understand what the actual aff does in round, as well as obscure kritiks. I don't want to be a bad judge, but I want to judge a lot, so what do you think the best way to become a better judge rather than debater is?


  • 0

when your bae is fam


#2 CalculusBC

CalculusBC

    Least's best

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts
80
Excellent
  • Name:Benny Cupo
  • School:Victoria East -> UT Austin

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:21 AM

If you don't understand something, then they should probably explain it better. I would argue that the team that wins the line by line and persuades you their arguments out weigh in a meaningful way is probably the team you should vote for. At the end of the day, if you want to be the super knowledgeable judge that always has on point RFDs and can be helpful, then you simply need to continue diversifying your reading and research just like you would if you were debating.
  • 1

I wonder if I actually understand half the arguments I go for, or if judges are just confused and think I'm right because I sound confident in my explanation...


#3 turls

turls

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
8
Okay
  • Name:alex turley
  • School:ESU

Posted 20 March 2017 - 03:44 PM

I agree largely with the above. I would say that line by line is not the best way to judge. Big picture debate is important
  • 1

#4 CalculusBC

CalculusBC

    Least's best

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts
80
Excellent
  • Name:Benny Cupo
  • School:Victoria East -> UT Austin

Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:30 PM

I agree largely with the above. I would say that line by line is not the best way to judge. Big picture debate is important


I agree that the big picture is important, but personally I'm a tech over truth kind of person. I'm in the camp of "If there is evidence for it, then it's probably somewhat true" that being said, in a good debate it takes more than a fire card or a drop to get my ballot. I'd like to be persuaded that these things matter. I'm very happy when a team knows they're losing an argument and start using the "even ifs" during their impact calculus. Nothing says "I know what is going on" more than "we lost X, but Y and Z are more important at the end of the day." I enjoy framing the round in the 2XR. I think that makes my decision calculus much clearer.
  • 0

I wonder if I actually understand half the arguments I go for, or if judges are just confused and think I'm right because I sound confident in my explanation...


#5 turls

turls

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
8
Okay
  • Name:alex turley
  • School:ESU

Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:42 PM

Sure, I don't disagree that judging philosophy is bad. I just think that it is better to be open to any style and really focus on judging the debate the way debaters tell you too. If a team says focus in big picture do that, if they say vote on line by line do that. Part of what makes a good debater is judge instruction, i.e. telling you where to vote and how to evaluate arguments. Really my point is that truth over tech, tech over truth, or a mix of both (like I personally use) all have legitimacy as a philosophy.

The key to being a good judge is carrying about giving good decisions to the best of your ability, being open to voting for debate styles (even if you don't understand them), trying to understand both sides as best you can, and making a decision that evaluates both sides equally.
  • 1

#6 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
358
Excellent
  • Name:Ben

Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:36 PM

Benny I like your paradigm a lot. I think it's A+. Just putting that out there.


  • 1

You don't need to have a crazy PoMo BaudTailleEuzeErrida K aff to win rounds.

 

 


#7 beck9696

beck9696

    ODT Host

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 120 posts
150
Excellent

Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:04 PM

After dropping in octo-finals at UIL state, the last tournament I have for my career is Nats, but after that, the only way I would be involved in the debate community is via judging and coaching. My largest fear, however, is that I end up being a sub-par judge. in terms of progressive debate, I enjoy kritiks and listen to them, however it is vastly difficult for me to understand what the actual aff does in round, as well as obscure kritiks. I don't want to be a bad judge, but I want to judge a lot, so what do you think the best way to become a better judge rather than debater is?

Objectively. 


  • 0

#8 CooperSchwarz

CooperSchwarz

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts
9
Okay
  • Name:Cooper Schwarz
  • School:Andrews

Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:14 PM

I agree that the big picture is important, but personally I'm a tech over truth kind of person. I'm in the camp of "If there is evidence for it, then it's probably somewhat true" that being said, in a good debate it takes more than a fire card or a drop to get my ballot. I'd like to be persuaded that these things matter. I'm very happy when a team knows they're losing an argument and start using the "even ifs" during their impact calculus. Nothing says "I know what is going on" more than "we lost X, but Y and Z are more important at the end of the day." I enjoy framing the round in the 2XR. I think that makes my decision calculus much clearer.

What about some back practices you think judges get into that I should avoid? I mean I know my own personal experiences, but I don't think I've ever experienced a good bad judge, if that make sense? Usually, whenever I feel as though I've been cheated out of a round, it is because the person in the back is lay (even though there is still something I know I could do to change the outcome), but I've never experienced a judge in the back who knows what they are doing, but still gives a bad RFD. 


  • 0

when your bae is fam


#9 CalculusBC

CalculusBC

    Least's best

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts
80
Excellent
  • Name:Benny Cupo
  • School:Victoria East -> UT Austin

Posted 21 March 2017 - 05:24 AM

What about some back practices you think judges get into that I should avoid? I mean I know my own personal experiences, but I don't think I've ever experienced a good bad judge, if that make sense? Usually, whenever I feel as though I've been cheated out of a round, it is because the person in the back is lay (even though there is still something I know I could do to change the outcome), but I've never experienced a judge in the back who knows what they are doing, but still gives a bad RFD.


Judge intervention is probably bad. Signing the ballot before the end of the debate. Not adapting to the debaters framing (covered above by Turls)
  • 0

I wonder if I actually understand half the arguments I go for, or if judges are just confused and think I'm right because I sound confident in my explanation...


#10 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
358
Excellent
  • Name:Ben

Posted 21 March 2017 - 05:51 AM

Judge intervention is probably bad. Signing the ballot before the end of the debate. Not adapting to the debaters framing (covered above by Turls)

 

I think judge intervention is inevitable-- people are more biased than they are conscious of. I try to be upfront about it, even if that means telling the debaters they should read a plan. I'd rather that than try to judge a k v fw debate objectively when I know I'm significantly more easily persuaded by one side of that argument.

 

But yeah don't sign the ballot before the end of the round lol. Unless someone says something egregious or makes a clipping accusation, you def should not do that.


  • 0

You don't need to have a crazy PoMo BaudTailleEuzeErrida K aff to win rounds.

 

 






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users