Debate judging

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
thanks to the judges.....good job, not always easiest job...

i did notice a good portion of scores were given solely on whether you agreed with a position taken. many points were taken away because the judges felt the position could not be true or correct....thats not what's at the core of debate championship, if both sides are forced to argue a point/counter point, you can't penalize someone for arguing a point you don't agree with simply because they were forced to take that stance....
 
Yurt said:
thanks to the judges.....good job, not always easiest job...

i did notice a good portion of scores were given solely on whether you agreed with a position taken. many points were taken away because the judges felt the position could not be true or correct....thats not what's at the core of debate championship, if both sides are forced to argue a point/counter point, you can't penalize someone for arguing a point you don't agree with simply because they were forced to take that stance....
Click to expand...
You're absolutely correct Yurt. I agree with you completely. In some cases it was like being assigned the unpopular side of an argument was a death sentence.
 
*shrugs*

All i can say is that wasn't how I approached the debates. But I will say I think a side with a more popular view point will naturally come off with a more "convincing" argument sometimes.

It's hard to fight against that. But If I remember correctly there were a lot of spots where I was specifically addressing the strategy some were taking, how articulare someone was, problems with how they were approaching their argument, etc...

Off the top of my head I know of at least two debates where I awarded the win to the argument I am philosophically against, damo v nigel, and yurt v. threedee. There could be more.
 
=Imperator= said:
*shrugs*

All i can say is that wasn't how I approached the debates. But I will say I think a side with a more popular view point will naturally come off with a more "convincing" argument sometimes.

It's hard to fight against that. But If I remember correctly there were a lot of spots where I was specifically addressing the strategy some were taking, how articulare someone was, problems with how they were approaching their argument, etc...

Off the top of my head I know of at least two debates where I awarded the win to the argument I am philosophically against, damo v nigel, and yurt v. threedee. There could be more.
Click to expand...

Is there a thread where we can see the discussion and rationale of the judges? I would be curious to see the debate I had with Dung and then the following with Billy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top