VBD Weekend Coverage: October 3-5, 2008
posted by Jon Cruz on October 5th, 2008
NEW YORK, N.Y. — VBD plans to provide results from multiple tournaments this weekend.
Saint James — Finals: Mountain Brook’s Carter Bielin defeated New Orleans Jesuit’s Micah Boyd on a 2-1 decision.
Long Beach — Finals: Torrey Pines’s Ilya Gaidarov defeated Esperanza’s Justin Pearce on a 2-1 decision.
Can you help us? Will you have results from other tournaments? Let Jon Cruz know!
Popularity: 1%
no more tag found, sorry
4 Responses to “VBD Weekend Coverage: October 3-5, 2008”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Jake Nebel Wins Big Bronx XXXVIII
- Chris Theis Claims Second St. Mark's Title
- BREAKING NEWS: It's Felons
- Alex Koren Wins UPenn
- Cameron Baghai Wins the Tedd Wood
- Debating the Merits of the Current Debate Topic
- Ilya Gaidarov Wins CSU Long Beach Title
- Field Report: The Kaiser
- In a Close Out, Scarsdale Takes the Kaiser
- Strike Sheet: Big Bronx XXXVIII
Posted from: 75.51.191.168
October 5th, 2008 00:33
Varsity division is getting destroyed by horrible judging.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 5th, 2008 10:24
No its not. It’s (almost) never the judges’ fault, its the competitors.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
October 5th, 2008 14:58
If you fail to be the one to persuade the judge, then that’s your fault, not anyone else’s.
Posted from: 68.93.74.23
October 5th, 2008 18:27
Mr. Jones: I defintiely agree with you that any debater concerned with winning has an obligation to adapt to the preferences of a judge. Experienced judges usually offer debaters with a detailed paradigm that allows them to tailor their strategies around what will “persuade” the judge.
What I find problematic are two situations that often occur.
1. Interaction between the judge and the competitor before the round is frowned upon. Debaters are unable to determine what the judge is looking for.
2. The judge is relatively inexperienced and doesn’t really know what they are looking for in a debate.
Every coach from the least inexperienced to the most experienced seems to instruct their debaters to do 4 things in these circumstances.
1. Speak well
2. Make easy to understand arguments
3. Demonstrate your understanding in CX
4. Be likable.
Outcomes often seem to occur in these situations where I would posit it is not the competitors’ fault.
Consider
1. Judges vote off some random tangent in the round that seemed to resonate with them.
2. Two experienced strong debaters are matched against each other. Both do the 4 things above with a reasonably high level of proficiency.
3. Judges have strong thoughts on the resolution or arguments that competitors are unable to reasonably anticipate.
I would be curious to hear your thoughts on how competitors would adjust their strategies in these situations. It seems like every competitive activity can be judged poorly. I don’t understand why debate would be different.