College Policy Debate Forums
July 15, 2018, 04:58:17 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Inaccurate/Incomplete judge philosophies  (Read 2445 times)
kelly young
Full Member
***
Posts: 239



WWW
« on: December 08, 2009, 09:40:04 AM »

Hello--

I have noticed this year a much higher rate of posted judge philosophies that are inaccurate or incomplete in regard to preferences and predispositions the judges have. Far too often, a philosophy will read "I let the students decide what to run--policy or K-- 'cause I'm totally cool and hip" and then at the end of round, the judge announces they only want to hear K debates and hate politics DAs, CPs and most policy debate. Or, if there is a section of the philosophy concerning theory predisposition--often there is no discussion whatsoever--it says something generally without mention of feelings towards dispo/conditionality/multiple perms etc.

Look, it's perfectly fine to have predispositions against certain arguments. But you MUST list these in your philosophies if you feel so strongly about them. I am growing very tired of hearing post-round judge comments such as, "I absolutely hate these kinds of arguments" or "you should know I would never vote for this strategy" when nothing in the judge's philosophy indicates this.

I ask that judges review their posted philosophies and update any relevant issues.
Logged

Director of Forensics/Associate Professor
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.0.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!