The Instigator
soccergamer92
Pro (for)
Tied
9 Points
The Contender
forensics
Con (against)
Tied
9 Points

Show Choir Competition judges are/can be picked with a bias against some choirs.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2007 Category: Arts
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,121 times Debate No: 330
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

soccergamer92

Pro

First off, let me say that this shouldn't turn into a very personal debate. I'm just trying to see both sides of this story.

Also, my main source for my statements is this fall's Central Crossing HS Show Choir Competition in Grove City, OH.

In favor of the topic, I bring forth 3 contentions:
1. Time slot placement of choirs "blinds" the judges of equally judging groups.

Let's say we have a good,large and loud group performing at 1:00 PM, and we have a smaller yet equally good group at 1:30 PM. Based on random placement alone, the judges will have a higher standard of volume, vocal quality, execution of choreography, etc. In turn, these choirs suffer when they could get a better rating by merely randomly getting a better time. Therefore, all groups compete in "class slots," where (i.e.) all class C groups perform, then all class B, and then class A.

2. Judges can be picked from ANYWHERE so long as they have the credentials.

When a panel/board looks at who to invite as a judge for their competition, they only look at that person's credentials as a choral/dance educator, and not at, say, which school that person is from, or how high of ratings that they give at other competitions they've judged at. This gives the possibility of bias against certain groups based on past rivalries as well as their degree of judging against different-sized groups, also adding to point #1.

3. Choirs suffer from their picks.

As a result of points #1 and #2, some choirs get unfairly judged and unaccurately rated. In turn, some good yet small group could not make it to finals whereas some other group with mediocre choreography could make it based on time placement and the personalities of the judges.
forensics

Con

Being in many choir over the years I have noticed yes, judges can have a bias. But that's because they can. Its their prerogative to judge how they want to. If they have the experience and the credentials to judge then they should judge. Do to the fact that there is a high demand for judges, they get what they can find. Many of them may be from the same school, but if they are qualified judges then they should be professional enough to choose based on talent and the overall appearance of the group. Not on time slot and what school they belong to. Everyone has an opinion and people make it to finals who sometimes shouldn't but unfortunately, that is the world we live in.

Coming from a very small town, my choir group has many hardships in competition. That mainly pushes us forward to do better and be more prepared for next year. There are always risks with judging, you must give in to them and get on with it or there is no competition at all.
Debate Round No. 1
soccergamer92

Pro

Basically you make the argument that judges are biased against certain groups because they're able to be biased. However, this doesn't make the action itself just. Therefore, this argument can be thrown out on the basis that it doesn't exactly apply to negating the topic.

Also, against your statement on the resolution of "live with it," you aren't really showing that show choir judges AREN'T biased, as the topic says. You're merely saying "yeah, it happens, live with it."

So basically, my argument is that all my points are valid based on the fact that she didn't really refute them at all.
forensics

Con

But all you are doing is complaining, there is no solution to what you are bringing forth. Have you thought out what to do?
The time slots for contestants is completely random! There cant be a bias based on time slot as you stated because the school isn't put in a specific spot. What your saying (or as it comes across to me) is that the only solution is to not have judges, but without judges there is no competition.
The argument that is most dominant is that it's unfair.
How are they unfairly judging if these judges have such high credntials? (Seeing as thats why they were picked to judge in the first place)
You argument (or attmept at)about judges being chosen based on their credentials alone cant really be used. When trying to find a judge for my debate tournaments I look at credentials and past history in debate, not what school they go to.

It is also very normal for a judge to rank their school lower to escape bias and to let the best choir go forward.

This is mainly just a case of opinions.
Debate Round No. 2
soccergamer92

Pro

soccergamer92 forfeited this round.
forensics

Con

Well I guess the only thing I really have left to say is this. Judges are there to judge, they are placed there mainly because of credentials, the schools are put in slots at random. There is no preference at all.

Everything else I want to say is in my other posts.
Thanks for the debate, it was fun.

KiraLynn
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by megan91509 9 years ago
megan91509
soccergamer92forensicsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Nanners 9 years ago
Nanners
soccergamer92forensicsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by IraqiStateOfAmerica 9 years ago
IraqiStateOfAmerica
soccergamer92forensicsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by asian_invasion 9 years ago
asian_invasion
soccergamer92forensicsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by soccergamer92 9 years ago
soccergamer92
soccergamer92forensicsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by forensics 9 years ago
forensics
soccergamer92forensicsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03