ERIC Number: ED272934
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1985-Aug
Reference Count: 0
The Debate Judge as Educator [and] Responses.
Phillips, Leslie; And Others
The purpose of the three papers that make up this document is to explore and redefine the role of debate judges. The first paper, by Leslie Phillips, begins with the assertion that the debate judge is first and foremost an educator, notes that judging is one of the forces that shape and direct competitive forensics, and goes on to consider practitioners' failure to conceive a clear educational role for the judge, and to examine some of the reasons for this failure. The paper also proposes some modest steps toward better, more "educational" judging. The second paper, a response by G. David Richardson, focuses on the variance of educational philosophies with the role of the critic-judge. The paper argues that the inquiry approach to education is most consistent and harmonious with the structure of policy debate. It also considers Phillips's brief treatment of paradigms as educational devices, giving specific attention to the tabula rasa paradigms and their implications for the educator-judge. Finally, the paper offers some modifications and amendments to Phillips's recommendations for improving the educational function of judging. The third paper, a response to Phillips by John Durkee, notes positions of consensus: (1) it is necessary to have a clear awareness of the judge as critic/educator, and (2) it is desirable that the judge let the student debaters know something about individual judging preferences. The paper then explores R. Rowland's debate judging paradigm and Phillips's tabula rasa paradigm and their feasibility as universal judging standards. Finally, the paper discusses the use of lay judges in debate, describing two natural controls that insure such use will not distort the educational nature of debate, and argues that Rowland's Debate Judge paradigm is a perfect format for judges to follow. (HTH)
Publication Type: Opinion Papers; Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Note: Papers presented at the National Forensic League Conference on the State of Debate (Kansas City, MO, August 8-10, 1985).