Introduction to Judging NFA-LD
The purpose of this article is to discuss the development of various paradigms for judging NFA-LD. This is valuable as a competitor as well because the better you understand this new judging pool the more successful you will be.
The first observation about judging in NFA-LD is that the rules which govern the way debate should be judged are not always enforced. Specifically the NFA-LD rules call for a stock issues paradigm and limits on what positions can be run such as some kritiks and counterplans. You will find that the same critics who are willing to accept these arguments will most likely also accept them in NFA-LD. As a critic you can decide for yourself because as to date there have never been any punitive actions taken against judges for decisions at tournaments. As a competitor this ambiguity in the NFA-LD rules is just another reason to ask about your critic before the round or when the round begins. Instead of asking about specific rules I always found it more effective to ask how the person feels “about the rules in general”.
The second issue in judging an NFA-LD debate is the role of evidence. While most of the field comes overlapping from parliamentary debate, there are also some veterans from CEDA/NDT debate which creates mutual confusion on the role of evidence. While judgment can be reserved to how each debater and judge feels, the general theme in NFA-LD is that evidence is not required for every argument but is encouraged. For example this past weekend in Wyoming I was informed that I had to vote for a disad because the AFF didn’t read any evidence against it, regardless of the four link turns. In my opinion you should read evidence where it is necessary and if you have it, it should not be a requirement for all arguments in NFA-LD but encouraged for most. As judges entering the pool you can make a decision as to how much evidence you will require, however analytic arguments keep this community accessible and NFA-LD distinctive from other forms of debate.
The third issue in NFA-LD is the way to deal with new arguments made in the rebuttal. I suggest one of two approaches; either ignore them completely, or star them for a later evaluation. Because NFA-LD only has one negative rebuttal and no points of order there is no way for either debater to protect themselves against false drops, or blatantly new arguments. This need to be done by the judge if a debater is abusing the priveledge of the last rebuttal. A final thought here is to not get carried away with excluding arguments. While as judges we can ignore new arguments I urge an effort to control the amount of influence you contribute to your decision, the debaters will appreciate it a lot more.
The fourth and final issue in NFA-LD is feedback. While your ballot has the decision I would encourage giving feedback to the debaters you see in your rounds right afterwards. Even if you or the tournament don’t appreciate or allow disclosure of decisions the feedback given to debaters right after rounds will reduce their uncertainty in future rounds in addition to helping educate the event as a whole. This is important as NFA-LD expands here in California, and many of our debaters try it out for the first time.
Kasey Gardner
University of the Pacific
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply