Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

What's your judicial paradigm?

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 5:07:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
By judicial paradigm, I just mean the general way you go about voting. My paradigm, for example, would be summarized to be something like this:

I try to check my personal views at the door when I begin reading and judge debates solely by the arguments that are presented in round. To do otherwise would be to ignore arguments or to interject my own arguments in the debate, which would defeat the purpose of the debate. I will ignore new substantive arguments made in the final round, as that limits the opponent's ability to respond. I take impacts into careful consideration when making my final decision, and I will only vote the arguments point unless given serious reason to do otherwise.

How about you?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 5:46:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 5:07:34 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
By judicial paradigm, I just mean the general way you go about voting. My paradigm, for example, would be summarized to be something like this:

I try to check my personal views at the door when I begin reading and judge debates solely by the arguments that are presented in round. To do otherwise would be to ignore arguments or to interject my own arguments in the debate, which would defeat the purpose of the debate. I will ignore new substantive arguments made in the final round, as that limits the opponent's ability to respond. I take impacts into careful consideration when making my final decision, and I will only vote the arguments point unless given serious reason to do otherwise.

How about you?

I'm going to follow a new paradigm from now on:

1- I make sure that the debate is not on American politics, history or economics.

2- I make a play-to-play summary as I read the debate by splitting the DDO page and the text-editor into two adjacent windows.

3- I reread the debate going over the play-to-play.

4- I try to be nice in my critique by flashing flowers here and there.

5- I write a polite RFD that summarizes my decision, and I try my best to show what DDO standards and considerations I followed.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 5:49:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Another way would be to pick a random bead in my Lapis Lazuli prayer-beads, and simply count the beads till I hit an end. If it is even, Pro gets my vote If it is odd, Con does. It always works because God guides my fingers and mind. #I Luv Jesus
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 6:05:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've been influenced (tainted?) by multiple judicial paradigms over my debate career. I've spent most of my time in NPDA, so I regard taking a step back from the debate and analyzing solely what's before me without outside influence as important. I've also spent a great deal of time in British Parliamentary debate, so I do insert some basic reasoning into my decisions. If something is logically inconsistent, even if it isn't pointed out, it impacts my decision. If there's a blatant factual issue in the debate, it will factor in, no matter whether it's addressed or not. So I strut a thin line. Since every judge who ever used the term "tabula rasa" to describe their paradigm has been anything but, I think I slide more towards the former than the latter, letting the debate play out before me and evaluating it based on what the debaters say, even if I have concerns.

Link stories are huge for me. I really need a solid idea of how someone gets from their claims to their impacts, and the weaker stories will little influence my decisions, no matter how grave the impact. That being said, impacting is best done in detail. I find this is actually most important in the final round, where I normally look for people to weigh their arguments against their opponent's. Oftentimes, this doesn't take place, leaving me as the judge to do the weighing. The key with me is not to make me think too much - I can analyze a debate pretty well, but you won't necessarily like the outcome if you're not clear enough. Actually, one of the best things I've seen done in this weighing process, and I see it used by a lot of top debaters on here, is the "even if's," granting that they might be losing an argument but still winning the debate.

I'm probably a pretty good judge to have if you're doing something risky, since I'll normally reward that on some level. I buy arguments that are well-explained, even if they're counter-intuitive. Much as I don't like them, I view Kritiks as worthwhile argumentation and will pick people up for them, though they have to be run well. I normally wont pay much attention to arguments in the final round of debate, so unless it's been clearly stipulated in the rules that they're fine, that's what I'm going to do.
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 6:34:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 5:07:34 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
By judicial paradigm, I just mean the general way you go about voting. My paradigm, for example, would be summarized to be something like this:

I try to check my personal views at the door when I begin reading and judge debates solely by the arguments that are presented in round. To do otherwise would be to ignore arguments or to interject my own arguments in the debate, which would defeat the purpose of the debate. I will ignore new substantive arguments made in the final round, as that limits the opponent's ability to respond. I take impacts into careful consideration when making my final decision, and I will only vote the arguments point unless given serious reason to do otherwise.

How about you?

I look at the guy with the cooler avatar and then give him all 7 points.
Raisor
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 6:39:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I believe the Neg must always present a counterplan because if the status quo was good then obviously Pro wouldn't have a case. Counterplans must always be run conditionally and Neg can spike out at anytime. I always vote on theory if I have the opportunity to. I don't believe in flowing and tend to believe everything said in the final speech of the debate is true. I don't understand kritiks but will probably vote on them anyways provided I agree with the general political leaning of it.

Also, I am a proud American citizen so if you say anything that could be interpreted as bad about the U.S. I will vote you down.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 6:54:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, I am a proud American citizen so if you say anything that could be interpreted as bad about the U.S. I will vote you down.

The U.S as the government, people or Pamela Anderson?
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 7:05:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 6:39:34 PM, Raisor wrote:

Also, I am a proud American citizen so if you say anything that could be interpreted as bad about the U.S. I will vote you down.

No joke, the first policy round I watched one of the judges said that.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Raisor
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 7:22:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 7:05:02 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/21/2014 6:39:34 PM, Raisor wrote:

Also, I am a proud American citizen so if you say anything that could be interpreted as bad about the U.S. I will vote you down.

No joke, the first policy round I watched one of the judges said that.

I had a judge say the thing about flowing. Also that he didn't pay attention to rebuttals since the debate was basically over by then.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 7:25:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 7:22:57 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/21/2014 7:05:02 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/21/2014 6:39:34 PM, Raisor wrote:

Also, I am a proud American citizen so if you say anything that could be interpreted as bad about the U.S. I will vote you down.

No joke, the first policy round I watched one of the judges said that.

I had a judge say the thing about flowing. Also that he didn't pay attention to rebuttals since the debate was basically over by then.

Oh god. In a policy round? I don't even see how it's possible to judge that way.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 7:27:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 7:22:57 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/21/2014 7:05:02 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/21/2014 6:39:34 PM, Raisor wrote:

Also, I am a proud American citizen so if you say anything that could be interpreted as bad about the U.S. I will vote you down.

No joke, the first policy round I watched one of the judges said that.

I had a judge say the thing about flowing. Also that he didn't pay attention to rebuttals since the debate was basically over by then.

Sounds like several of my judges. I remember my partner and I sharing a pained wince.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 10:01:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. That usually means trying to follow the past of least resistance in awarding the win (find the "easiest way out").

What that means for me is:

1) Start with framework//weighing mechanism. If one debater offers one and not the other, I default to that weighing mechanism. If *both* debaters offer a framework, then it's harder. If one debater tells me why to *prefer* his framework, and the other doesn't, I default to the framework that I'm told to prefer. However, if neither side tells me which framework to prefer, it's almost no better than neither side offering a framework in the first place. Basically I'm forced to decide which framework is more reasonable (unless I can decide for one debater under either framework).

If no framework is offered, I default to a cost-benefit analysis.

2) Credit all dropped arguments to the respective sides. Take them as true.

3) For refutations, decide which arguments are mitigated (and approximately how much) and which are turned. This requires making a few inferences of my own in most cases based on common sense. Inherently, the more debaters under-explain arguments, the more I'm forced to rely on my own inferences about which argument was more reasonable. Often the debater providing more *warrants* for his arguments is going to win the refutation battle.

4) Weigh impacts. Generally I credit tangible impacts over intangible ones, quantiative impacts over qualitative, and I tend to weigh morality as a very small impact (in a cost-benefit analysis), unless I'm given a framework that tells me why I prefer morality impacts.

5) If I don't know the winner after weighing all the impacts and mitigation under the framework I chose, then I flip a coin. Since coins always flip tails, Con automatically wins :P

No but really; if it's that close, I decide the debate on BOP, which is usually on the Aff. So Con will usually win.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 10:31:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For normative arguments, whoever was more persuasive will win every time with me. For positive arguments, whoever presents the most evidence will win. Most debates (especially on here) are normative, though, so I'll talk about them.

If it's a debate of value, I want you to tell me explicitly what you value and why. I want you to tell me how your proposal achieves those values. I want to know why, if irreconcilable, your values are to be preferred over your opponent's. If not irreconcilable, I want to know how your proposal best achieves both your value and your opponent's.

If only a debate of policy (what should or should not be done), I want a discussion of means and ends. What's the thing we're trying to do? Why is that important? How is what you're saying most conducive to that end? Basic questions like that need to be answered. I want to know what's at stake in the debate. What's gained if we go with your idea? What's lost if we don't? What's lost if we do? Does the harm of what's lost outweigh the benefit of what's gained? Why or why not? What are the impacts on all affected levels? Are those good or bad? Why?

I'm not one of those judges who assumes that everything said in a round is true, because that's intellectually irresponsible. There are too many opportunities to invent bullsh!t, misinterpret evidence or overstate/understate impacts of evidence for me to do that. I am also not one of those judges who pretends to forget everything I know when I walk in the door.

Simple enough...
YYW
Posts: 36,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 10:34:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
On kritiks, they're going to lose with me every time unless the resolution is genuinely absurd. NFL resolutions are almost never (in fact, I think there's only one that I'd run a K on in the history of all NFL topics) genuinely absurd. Many resolutions on DDO are, though.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 10:36:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 6:34:17 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/21/2014 5:07:34 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
By judicial paradigm, I just mean the general way you go about voting. My paradigm, for example, would be summarized to be something like this:

I try to check my personal views at the door when I begin reading and judge debates solely by the arguments that are presented in round. To do otherwise would be to ignore arguments or to interject my own arguments in the debate, which would defeat the purpose of the debate. I will ignore new substantive arguments made in the final round, as that limits the opponent's ability to respond. I take impacts into careful consideration when making my final decision, and I will only vote the arguments point unless given serious reason to do otherwise.

How about you?

I look at the guy with the cooler avatar and then give him all 7 points.

My avatar is God from Futurama. Or should. I bring DOOM Baby back ?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 10:45:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First rule, do not read any other RFDs or comments. Period. Those can be looked at after you vote.

While I try to vote as subjectively as possible, the arguments is supposed to be for more convincing, so I try to pretend I'm a logically sound 14 year old girl that knows everything about logic and nothing about the wood and theories around her.

From there I will typically break arguments down into what is very convincing, moderately, slightly, and not convincing at all. Anything hat is not convincing at all does not require a refutation. For those that are actually convincing, I will typically follow each one to the end by itself (pending the rules for the final round of course).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 11:18:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 10:36:41 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/21/2014 6:34:17 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/21/2014 5:07:34 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
By judicial paradigm, I just mean the general way you go about voting. My paradigm, for example, would be summarized to be something like this:

I try to check my personal views at the door when I begin reading and judge debates solely by the arguments that are presented in round. To do otherwise would be to ignore arguments or to interject my own arguments in the debate, which would defeat the purpose of the debate. I will ignore new substantive arguments made in the final round, as that limits the opponent's ability to respond. I take impacts into careful consideration when making my final decision, and I will only vote the arguments point unless given serious reason to do otherwise.

How about you?

I look at the guy with the cooler avatar and then give him all 7 points.

My avatar is God from Futurama. Or should. I bring DOOM Baby back ?

I like doom baby
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 2:05:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 11:18:47 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/21/2014 10:36:41 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/21/2014 6:34:17 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/21/2014 5:07:34 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
By judicial paradigm, I just mean the general way you go about voting. My paradigm, for example, would be summarized to be something like this:

I try to check my personal views at the door when I begin reading and judge debates solely by the arguments that are presented in round. To do otherwise would be to ignore arguments or to interject my own arguments in the debate, which would defeat the purpose of the debate. I will ignore new substantive arguments made in the final round, as that limits the opponent's ability to respond. I take impacts into careful consideration when making my final decision, and I will only vote the arguments point unless given serious reason to do otherwise.

How about you?

I look at the guy with the cooler avatar and then give him all 7 points.

My avatar is God from Futurama. Or should. I bring DOOM Baby back ?

I like doom baby

I was considering going back. I might need to make a few more.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 2:32:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 2:05:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/21/2014 11:18:47 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/21/2014 10:36:41 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/21/2014 6:34:17 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/21/2014 5:07:34 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
By judicial paradigm, I just mean the general way you go about voting. My paradigm, for example, would be summarized to be something like this:

I try to check my personal views at the door when I begin reading and judge debates solely by the arguments that are presented in round. To do otherwise would be to ignore arguments or to interject my own arguments in the debate, which would defeat the purpose of the debate. I will ignore new substantive arguments made in the final round, as that limits the opponent's ability to respond. I take impacts into careful consideration when making my final decision, and I will only vote the arguments point unless given serious reason to do otherwise.

How about you?

I look at the guy with the cooler avatar and then give him all 7 points.

My avatar is God from Futurama. Or should. I bring DOOM Baby back ?

I like doom baby

I was considering going back. I might need to make a few more.

It's a cute and fun avatar. What can get better than that? Besides any of FREEDO's Avatars of course.