And thus we end this particular discussion. I have to point out that, at the bottom, while I may disagree with PJ on MJP, we are pretty much as one on LD. Members of the VCA need not be reminded that I have, aside from using it for novice training, abandoned that particular event. I proselytize for MJP as a tabber trying to rein in circuit dominance. Come to think of it, if everyone were to rank, my job would be a lot harder...
Anyhow, from PJ:
---------
A well thought out reply, so thank you.
My MJP objection applies I think even if no particular people are advantaged.
I do agree that people are going to specialize anyway, I just think we should actively discourage them from doing so, even if that is only along the margins. I am a big fan of schools requiring at least basic competence across the ol' field of knowledge- I would be a pretty poor history teacher if I suffered from innumeracy. And scientists who are not aware of the political and social implications of their research are a real threat to us all.
For debate, even limited to the national circuit, I think that there was more of a variety of approaches once could utilize - or at least be competent at utilizing - in order to be competitive. Even with a continuum, I just think there is less ability to move along that line. While I recognize that MJP does not guarantee I get judges favorable to 'my' style, it does narrow down the styles somewhat (even given the large pool of judges ranked '1'. It gives many debaters less incentive to be Renaissance debaters. It is not just or even mostly a question of national circuit or not.
Perhaps I am pining for the fjords, but I do think that half a dozen years ago Debater X may have had 65% a preferred style, now their younger sibling may be 80%. That's pretty huge. And sure, likely this is not true for the best debaters, but I do suspect it is true for those in the middle.
I do think that having coaches describe the judges helps, and
a tournament with 40 judges would not be too difficult to rank. But a tournament with hundreds?
Even with CPs modification, some schools will assign a person or two to do all the ranking, whereas smaller ones will be be left with their student(s) doing the ranking and the preparing. People like the Parnivore would be the exception to the rule. Not they are not already, but even more so...
These students will have to choose between intelligently ranking judges versus focusing on their arguments and skills. And because we are so judge-centered, I feel that many students will focus on the judge aspect.
Because it is always the judge's fault (though, oddly enough, rarely to the judge's credit...)
In truth, I am not comfortable with a complete newcomer handling a bubble round either. But we did muddle through before MJP, somehow.
The idea that students report back that the judging was excellent is a serious point. The debaters DO work hard. They do deserve good judges. Many suggest that debaters work so hard they deserve some type of agency in choosing their judges.
I just think the idea of agency is misplaced. Debaters should have the agency to run the arguments they want to argue. What they shouldn't have is the agency to avoid the repercussions of those choices. To choose an example that has only happened twice in in the years I have been judging, If someone argues in front of me that genocide is good, or that racism or sexism or homophobia is good, I will vote against them, no matter how well developed their argument. On the just past JanFeb LD topic, I think it would be bad if debaters chose judges who would be receptive to potentially offensive arguments and isolated those who would not be receptive to those arguments. If that is judge intervention, bummer.Other than being a high ranking financial business person, there are not many jobs where people have the agency to take whatever risks they want without worrying about the consequences.
Besides, if there is one belief that debaters have that is not true it is the idea that debate life is fair and merit always wins out. That is not true, and if sometimes losing a round one 'should' have won, well, helps to develop a sense of empathy, that would be not the worst fate.
You do make me feel better (or less worse) about the whole business however...)
No comments:
Post a Comment