Rules, Part Three, The Return of the Jedi

We’ll get to the rules in a minute, since for this particular installment of them I don’t have all that much to say.

Bump registration closes tonight. Presumably we will reach the 116 limit (in fact, we have already, except there’s 2 teams only tentatively signed up, pending this or that). Every room is taken, for policy and LD and Pfft. My fears that the timing might be affected by the bookends of Glenbrooks and Apple Valley have been dispelled. I’m a happy camper. Now I’ve got to look to the details, especially in the judging. There’s the whole rigmarole of the community rankings, which has to be sorted out. And I would be very happy to hire a couple of policy judges, just for some wiggle room there. But, mostly, it’s just paperwork from this point on. Lots of paperwork, but paperwork nonetheless.

Somehow I managed to get a new Nostrum done in the middle of all of this. One of my favorites, in fact. Monday the Plebes came over to talk about Nov-Dec. The problem with this particular group does still remain their quantity. That is, there’s an awful lot of them. Some of them seem to be non-debaters, especially the two upperclassmen. One actually didn’t show up for the CFL Saturday, which puts him almost indelibly on the coachean pooplist, and the other simply seems happy to bloviate at meetings. Whatever. Even without these two there’s plenty of others. Although getting them to Monti is proving difficult, because of other commitments (like homework and—gag me with Moon Unit’s spoon—Halloween). Only 2 are signed up, but I can live with that. They’ll find Li’l Lex all that more difficult as a result, but that’s their problem. I’ll find Li’l Lex a piece of cake! To cover themselves, they can watch some rounds next week. That should help.

Speaking of Li’l Lex, I’ve registered for both Li’l and Bi’g. There are some software issues that I’ve told Chris P about; the MFL site ain’t perfect yet. But it’s close. It mostly wasn’t recognizing Li’l judges; it told me that Becker and Burgers were unqualified. The noive!

On the Little Elvis front, I picked up a 120 gig firewire drive Monday. This will be entirely devoted to Little E, including a straightforward total backup; after all, Little E is only 30 gigs. How big that seemed then, and how small that seems now. I had also bought a new flashdrive because Tik pronounced teek—who was quite a hit with the Newbies Monday night until he started attacking them—stole the other one, but then the other one turned up behind the TV where he had abandoned it in favor of the mice he’s been dancing around with, so I cleared off the old one and, to save disk space, attempted to install YDKJ, The Ride, on the Virtual PC partition, storing it on the flash. And—drumroll—it works! YDKJ is back!!! With the best version ever!!! Tabbing has just gotten seriously more entertaining.

Finally, the rules, AKA LINCOLN DOUGLAS JUDGING GUIDELINES

I’d like to go on about these at great length, but we’ve already covered anything substantive in here. I will take this material and use it, along with some other stuff, as handouts for the MHL and for my own annual judge training.

1. A decision SHOULD NOT be based upon:
a. Personal bias – A judge’s preference for a side of the resolution or a topic bias should not enter into the decision. A judge must decide the round based on the arguments presented in that round. Objectivity is the primary responsibility of any judge.
b. Partiality – The judge should not be influenced by the reputation of or relationship with the debaters, schools, or coaches. If a situation arises where impartiality is in doubt, the judge has the responsibility to report this potential conflict of interest to the tab room.
c. New arguments introduced in rebuttals– The judges shall disregard new arguments introduced in the rebuttals. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the answering of arguments introduced by opponents.
2. A decision SHOULD BE based upon the consideration of any or all of the following questions:
a. Burden of proof - Which debater has proven his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle by the end of the round? No debater can realistically be expected to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. A judge should prefer quality and depth of argumentation to mere quantity of argumentation. A judge should base the decision on which debater more effectively resolved the central questions of the resolution rather than on insignificant dropped arguments.
b. Value structure – Which debater better established a clear and cohesive relationship between the argumentation and the value structure?
c. Argumentation – Which debater better presented his/her arguments with logical reasoning using appropriate support? Which debater best utilized cross-examination to clarify, challenge, or advance arguments?
d. Resolutionality –Which debater best addressed the central questions of the resolution?
e. Clash – Which debater best showed the ability to both attack his/her opponent’s case and to defend his/ her own?
f. Delivery – Which debater communicated in a more persuasive, clear, and professional manner? A judge should give weight only to those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him or her as a judge.

Again, they haven’t belabored an issue the Legion was gnawing over endlessly, namely partiality. They simply say, don’t do it, which I think is more than enough. And that last sentence will never have any effect on anyone, but it asks that you only vote on issues you understand; don’t be cowed into thinking the 17-year-old debater knows more than you do because he quotes Habermas or one of those other hifalutin Greeks. But no one will ever really act on that. Who wants to admit they don’t know something? “Oh, yeah. Loved your Habermas point. I’ll be incorporating it into my daily life at the absolute next possible opportunity.”

All right, I’ll admit. I’ve been reading pomo again. Including the perennially incomprehensible Habermas. Lyotard, on the other hand, remains interesting, especially when discussing the connection of modern art to postmodernism. As Caveman clearly explains, the best application of most of the ideas of postmodernism are in art, not in debate rounds. And especially in the area of architecture, where the lines are so clearly drawn (no pun intended).

Next up, the new LD ballot and judge instructions.