Showing Weakness While Judging Debate

Thanks Mike for posting this interesting question. I think you have hit it on the nail but would add one more observation – the need for being a “cool” judge. The need or desire to want to be a part of the “cool” debating and to be a part of the “cool” judges competitors talk about.

But I think the underlying assumption there is that the “cool” style of debate includes spreading and talking fast. There is no inherent reason that style has to be privileged over making argument choices (aka critical thinking) and talking at a conversational rate.

It may be illustrative to think that when a “fast/spread” negative debater debates a “conversational” affirmative debater, I doubt anyone ever thinks that in order to go fast the negative debater should have to read a “slow bad kritik.” Yet, when a conversational negative debater debates a “fast/spread” affirmative debater, they first have to win “speed bad” in order to debate in a conversational rate. That is privilege and it’s artificially created as proposed by Mike through the need not to look weak.

I, for one, am no longer concerned with being perceived as cool by debaters. I simply do not really care. I am concerned with doing everything I can to ensure debate is something that I can justify to myself and my department. For as soon as both of those things can no longer happen I’m done with NFA-LD.

Indeed, in response to Mike’s scenario, I do not think it’s the judge who is weak but the debater for not being able to adapt to an event which clearly sets out as a goal a pleasant rate of delivery in opposition to spread debate.

Thanks for posting this Mike. I, for one, am not afraid of telling debaters to “slow down” and then awarding them a loss for not doing so – AS THE RULES, which everyone has access to, specify judges should do.

My interpretation of the spread issue has always been judge adaptation. If the judge can flow you, there’s no problem.

Of course, engaging younger debaters with tactics they’re not prepared to answer is an unfortunate occurance, but I see no reason why one is more guilty for spreading someone out than making a complex theory argument.

I witnessed and heard a lot of stories this weekend about judges making decisions based on THEIR opinions of the positions run in round. I actually heard that a judge said “i didn’t think your case was that good, so I vote on presumption,” or “i thought it was predictable; i mean, it’s on the internet.”

Maybe I just don’t get the rationale of engineering an event to your liking, whatever the end goal, but I feel that blatant and unapologetic intervention is just as disparaging and discouraging to debaters, young and senior alike, as spreading or running theory arguments. I have a heck of a lot of an easier time explaining to my kids how they can improve and deal with the k, the spread, the pic/pec, etc, than when i have to explain why they lost because the judge didn’t agree with one argument or another.

If you are going to the free IVC LD tournament this Friday I will be judging the tournament and not competing in order to help support the tournament.
I am judging, it is my off day, and I don’t care if novices/juniors don’t like me because they can’t try to spread. don’t go faster then I care to flow… I will give pleas for reduced speed.

also, I agree – judges will have to step up if they want the event to look like you say it should. Some just don’t care to do it because they do want to be the “cool” judge but some do it because that is how they want their team to debate. All of what you are saying is true. I just don’t know what to do about it…

in response to your scenario:

“Of course, engaging younger debaters with tactics they’re not prepared to answer is an unfortunate occurance, but I see no reason why one is more guilty for spreading someone out than making a complex theory argument.”

Because, spreading someone out is making the event inaccessible to them. They can not participate. A “complex theory argument” presented in a way which a new participant can understand, should be debate-able. If you are making arguments why Fiat is bad for the affirmative in such a way that a debater can understand what you are saying they can come up with something.

But, if instead, by “complex theory argument” you mean a jargon loaded unexplained made up for debate position delivered at such a high rate of speed as to be inaccessible unless you’ve spent years in debate, then I think both are equally bad. I don’t need my debaters to win in order to justify this activity – I need my debaters to be able to participate and come out of the rounds thinking they’ve learned something.

Instead, what Mike talks about and what I’ve seen too many times, is debaters walking out of rounds saying “what just happened? I have no idea what the other debater even said and had no clue what to say in response.” That is an activity that is not sustainable nor accessible to all but the most experienced debaters. We can certainly have an event that is for debaters with vast experience or we can have an event that is accessible to all – my vote is for the latter.

To pre-empt: This does not mean that debaters have to DUMB down their positions. It is not a “race to the bottom” slogan as people like to throw around. Instead, it is a call for all participants to deliver their arguments in a way that make sense to everyone much like we ask speakers in individual events. More to the point: would a non-debate judge be able to follow the logic of your position? There is no reason why a fiat bad argument could not be presented and persuasive to a judge who has no idea what fiat is – it just has to be presented in a way that is accessible using real world language and real world logic. This seems exactly what the purpose of NFA-LD is supposed to fulfill.

I saw a round yesterday where AFA Brandon tried to show the audience that he could read the Lafayette T blocks faster than anyone in the West. He came up against the most middle of the road AFF that had been posted on this site by Danny Cantrell as a teaching tool back in the middle of August. Danny and others had spent a bunch of time explaining the weaknesses of the case, yet AFA Brandon spent no time of his NEG on the case, he just read three T arguments and a Funding Spec. argument (also discussed on this site as one of the weaker positions to take). AFA Brandon prevailed, not because of his ability to clash, but because he read three T violations and a F-spec violation with so many standards that there was no way to even check if they all coincided. At one point he said, “I don’t need to go for ground, just limits.” Thankfully I only had to explain to one of my novice debaters, not all of them, that limits and ground are the same standard. NEGs argue to limit the ground, AFFs argue to broaden it. AFA Brandon also talked about reasonable limits as a NEG, and sadly this is an AFF standard not a NEG standard.

My reaction to the speed in many cases is that debaters who are too busy (that’s being nice) to research the topic can just read super fast and bamboozle just about anyone that they are winning if they exude confidence. And when I say just about anyone, I mean judges who have never actually learned about T standards and how to use them correctly. Speed is not the issue, but nonsense delivered at a fast speed is a serious problem. AFA Brandon could find a career reading those disclaimers at the end of dangerous medication commercials, where they rush over all of the side-effects so quickly that you aren’t concerned about bleeding ulcers and bowel problems.

This should be the year that judges object to the consistent use of crappy AFF cases put out by the Lafayette camp. AFA Brandon should go back to his reading and refresh on the notion of presumption. When a case isn’t prima facie, it isn’t good, and then the judge votes on presumption. When the NEG makes the arguments, the judge gets to vote on it.

Last year I was inspired by AFA Brandon and his approach to debate. This year I’m disheartened entirely by his attitude and believe that the conspiring that goes on between judges and some debaters is nothing short of corruption. AFA Brandon, please print this post off and give it to the tab room whenever we are at the same tournament. Ask the tab room to strike me from your judging pool. Now you can continue on your path to become the fastest reader of the Lafayette T blocks without me standing in your way.

I’d like to end by asking a question to Danny Cantrell. Is this site now an avenue for disgruntled debaters to complain about judges? Can we have a separate section for that? AFA Brandon is referring to me in his post, and while I can ignore the pettiness and his obvious inability to accept disapproval from people, if all of my decisions are going to be refuted on this site by dogmatic 20 year olds who haven’t a clue that limits and ground relate to the same thing, then I will probably stop posting here.

I think I know where Dr. Sydne is coming from, because I’m there already.

As much as I’d like to comment on the substance of this thread, I am not qualified to do so. Despite several attempts on my part to participate – I have not been asked to judge NFA LD this year. (And yes, I can take a hint.)

I never thought I’d say this, but I have had it with intercollegiate debating. No matter what I, or anyone else, seems to say or do – there seems to be an inherent consensus in favor of maintaining the activity – and every fragment thereof – as some kind of postmodern performance art, conducted in an alternate reality, with its own unique language and culture. Is that a “good thing” or a “bad think?” I dunno; but “it ain’t me, babe.”

I have comparatively little of my life left to live. I don’t intend to spend that time playing at King Canute. Maybe I can just finish work on my experimental starship in the backyard.

I wish everyone involved nothing but happiness and success.

I’m sorry to hear that Michael – although I wouldn’t read into the fact that at the two tournament so far this year you haven’t judged. The IVC tournament this weekend is looking for judges and I’m sure would appreciate your assistance – especially since almost all the competitors are novice I bet you’d have a blast.

Regarding Sydne’s question: I think Brandon’s comment, while I disagree with it, was appropriate for the site. He did not name anyone and until you referenced yourself I had no idea who the judge in question was in his comment. I think it’s only fair that if coaches are going to be able to post comments that students should as well.

I would hope that this comment space would be a place for education. Rather than attacking Brandon for his post I think we can have a productive discussion on what is best for the activity and where we should go from here. Perhaps he is right that coaching answers to positions is better than judges who assert their view in the rounds. Perhaps it’s not as clear cut as just those two options.

I agree with Mike that all judge decisions are intervention. I listened to a parli round on Friday that argued net-benefits allows the judge to be objective because I can use impact calculus to make a decision. And I thought, how is that more or less intervention than any other decision I make? OK, so using magnitude I vote Opp. That’s as much intervention as (the example in the round) “using logic I vote Gov.”

I would just urge everyone to respect, engage, and encourage debate… we probably all disagree and that’s, as I’ve said before, fine. We can do so in a way that does not marginalize any particular coach, judge, program, debater, perspective, etc.

I should probably come up with a comment policy…

I happened to watch the semifinal outround that Sydne is referring to. My advice to her is, to be blunt, don’t take it personally. The other two judges on the panel, my own coach as well as a judge from UoP, were both fine with speed and were both technically/theoretically proficient. Brandon made the strategic decision to “punt” Sydne’s ballot. I probably would have done the same had I been in his position.

I will further discuss my thoughts in a blog post (as soon as I knock out this 5-page history essay, bleh).

On the subject of intervention – I define it as when a judge votes on an “argument” that was never actually made in the round. For example, during my first parli round on Saturday, I ran a protectionism disadvantage against a renewable energy case. The RFD was literally “I don’t think renewable energy is protectionist.” Which would be fine…except the proposition team never articulated anything even resembling such an argument. Those are the rounds where you want to bash your head into a locker.

I think Nick’s example is very illustrative. To me, that is not a case of judge intervention – at least not inappropriate intervention. Whether or not renewable energy is protectionism or not is the heart of the debate whether or not the disad links to the case. Just because the judge was not convinced there was a link hardly means the judge inappropriately intervened.

A situation where I do see inappropriate judge intervention is if the opposition team never ran a protectionism disadvantage, but the judge voted for the opposition because “well, the renewable energy case is protectionism and that’s bad.” If ballots contain entire positions or arguments which were never brought up in the round that’s inappropriate judge intervention.

Further, I think Sydne’s angst is not that she was “punted” or anything like that as I’m sure she would be one of the first to recommend such a strategy. It’s the characterization that she was not “technically/theoretically proficient” as the other two judges. That’s not the problem. I’m sure Sydne was at least as technically/theoretically proficient if not more than the other two judges. The problem is ignoring the rules of the event which everyone has access to which say the event should not look like that. And the rules are not there just to be rules – the purpose is to create an event that is not just one person CEDA/NDT debate.

I can also assure everyone – if NFA-LD begins to resemble that style of debate it will be GONE from Southern California. The only way I was able to ‘sell’ the event to tournaments and coaches from around the region was the promise that this event was not just CEDA/NDT masking itself.

As I always say in these debates, I have nothing personally against CEDA/NDT debate. If that’s the event that you support that’s great. It’s just not NFA-LD and if we just continue to make all of our debate events the same we’re going to limit growth and accessibility to new students.

Re: “Judges are being weak when they pretend to understand speed/jargon that they don’t”:

Agreed. I find it refreshing when a critic is willing to say “I simply did not understand your argument.” It demonstrates a kind of intellectual confidence that I have an immense amount of respect for. I think there is a problem, both in the NFA-LD community and the Parli community, when judges pretend to understand arguments that they didn’t and then vote on them because they think it will make them look cool. Too few judges are willing to look a debater and say “If you want me to vote on that argument, you need to explain it slower and more clearly next time so that I understand what it is you are saying.”

Now, this contrasts with the following statement, which is “I didn’t buy this argument.” I refer to this as the consumer theory of debate criticism, which sees each argument as something that the judge decides the validity of. This is clearly problematic as there is no way, in advance, to know the judge’s predispositions are to certain arguments, and forces debaters to contort themselves into trained monkeys trying to fit themselves into the judge’s preferences. Obviously, as Mike says, there is an extent to which we all find certain arguments more compelling than others, but part of the burden of debate criticism is working as hard as possible to take yourself out of the debate round and evaluate the arguments as they were engaged by the debaters.

I hope we can continue the discussion at the IVC tournament on Friday (noon – B200 lobby). Anyone who would like to judge, please come to volunteer your time (I will give some gas money).

I believe that we can shape debate to be educational for our students. This semester we have already had over 30 IVC students compete and get the experience of debate. It isn’t perfect, but students are thinking and speaking.

Officially, the term is not punted (which is what you do to an argument). Rather it is sacrificing the judge. If a majority of LD followers were on the panel, then the rule violators would be sacrificed.

Really, the judges who ignored the rules are the ones who need to be called out. There should be a sanctioning (or at a minimum educating) of those judges.

We have to minimize the concern for trophies and focus on the education.

I want my students to experience as much debate as possible. Sometimes they get some wacky judges or some rude competitors (as they will get in real life). But mostly they get to experience critical thinking in an oral format.

I know the need to win causes people to do strategic things. But when Sydne speaks up it is part of the education. When Mike writes about his feelings, it is education.

So come on Friday. We will print up the rules and have them available.

I would also like to do some experimentation later. My idea is to keep the same rules and topic but put it into the CEDA format. Perhaps a round robin with an audience of debate class students. I may even ban spec args and Ks. We used to do this in the league 15 years ago.

This year my team will do LD NPDA BP and perhaps our CEDA experiment. More debate is better than no debate (even if our colleagues have different ideas of the educational experience they want to provide).

Gary

“I believe that we can shape debate to be educational for our students.”

Gary, I have an immense amount of respect for you and your program. I ask the following question in good faith.

Why is it that debate must be shaped in order to be educational?

@ Will: With all due respect, because [speaking only IMHO, of course] it’s become anti-educational – at least in certain aspects (communication skills, accurate factual knowledge of the topic areas, to name two).

I could elaborate, but there’s no point, because I’m either completely alone, or part of a minority so small that not even Liberal Democrats pander to it. And that’s the point.

Parli, in particular, has become intellectual cotton candy deep-fried in lard. The kids might love it, but it is not necessarily the best choice for a regular (educational) diet.

@ Gary: I would very much love to, but I will have to see first what’s up with my high school debaters. They have CSUF this weekend.

BTW: In case anybody hasn’t noticed, the NFA Rules clearly state that judges who violate the rules should be “called out” to the Tournament Administration (as if anybody reads rules anymore).

Dr. Kasle–just for clarity’s sake, all of those procedurals were my own creation. In fact, the interp card on one of the Ts was from a phone interview I conducted with a staffer on the House Transportation & Infrastructure committee. I consider this a fair amount of effort into producing my arguments.

On the point of the content, I apologize if it came out too quickly as I was in fact making a strategic decision, but the gist of the limits vs ground debate was this: competing interpretations dictates that you weigh interp vs. counterinterp on the grounds of what either would justify were it to be widely accepted.

The limits standard argues that an interpretation limits the affirmative team to a reasonable and predictable number of cases to present. The ground argument says that the interpretation would allow access to certain neg arguments that are, i would argue, entitled to the neg (the example I use being funding).

That is how they come out of the shell I wrote, and what I have argued (with a fair amount of success) all year. I apologize if this is inconsistent with how the T debate should go, and ask that you please explain the correct interpretation of these standards so I can understand how they’re the same and, hopefully, stop spouting nonsense.

In any event, I view the procedural debate as exciting, educational and rewarding to critical thinking and creativity. In my opinion, nothing on the on case debate can reach the level of depth a good T debate goes to, and thus I continue to run procedurals.

But more importantly, I don’t view it as a check on whether or not the judge, in his or her mind, believes the case is topical, predictable, whatever. I view it as a means to challenge the aff on the topicality of their case, which is a stock issue just like inherency or solvency.

I don’t know how to reconcile the consensus among many of the posters on this site that T or spec are frivolous unless there’s actual abuse, but judges who prefer offense/defense and procedurals are “corrupt” because they don’t vote on stock issues like inherency. Neither party is willing to give weight to stock issues they don’t like absent extreme cases, but the latter party has NEVER indicted the ethics of the former, and I don’t think that’s acceptable. I have never conspired with a judge towards a ballot, and have received both losses and wins when warranted from judges whom I consider friends. The only time I suspect personal opinions might have influenced decisions are interventionist judges who arbitrarily insert their opinions (with which I can never engage) into their RFDs.

Oh, and I apologize if my previous post seemed to be bad mouthing you–I did not mention you and simply used the instance as an example, just as Mr. Miller did with another instance in the initial post.

Hey Brandon – do have the URL for that phone interview? I forgot to ask for it after the round yesterday. Thanks.

I have 2 things to say if anyone cares to listen

1) I think that the only way I have access to a debate event that is 1 v 1 is with NFA-LD because of team constraints. We just don’t have money to do other forms of debate. We have a couple of novices who are running around with lafy stuff but for the most part LD at my school is me. I wrote/compiled my cases, DAs, Ks, Ts, and whatever else. I like 1 v 1 and i want to keep that.
However, to have access to some rounds I have to go faster. I don’t care, I would rather go fast… but some people are significantly faster then me so I strategically move towards a slower pace in order to have a better chance to win the round.
Either way, the only way to change the format of the event is to create a “rebellion” and get the rules to change. If the rules change then we would all be happy. So far, all I see against speed is that it is a rule. When the rules change because we force them to then we are all happy, right?

2) That being said, some people are being pushed out at lower levels of the event from a steep learning curve which is made worse by spreading. Gary sees this and so he tries to focus education for the classes that he is in charge of towards communication styles.
I do not see him knocking other styles but for the purposes of his program that is how he decides to run it. If that is how he chooses to shape/run his program let us not grieve him. Different programs for different people, that is why you can go to IVC or UoP.

I really don’t see in the rules how speeding is against the rules. I know the language “antithetical” is strong, but it seems deliberately different from other language in the rules, such as “debaters must cite full name, credentials, etc.” Nowhere does it say “Debaters MUST go at a conversational tone,” and I think any cry of rules violation on speed is a flagrant misinterpretation.

Now, if a debater won’t slow down after JUDGE warnings, then it seems more reasonable to issue the loss, but even still, the rules say the judge is “encouraged,” not obligated.

I believe if the rules are so important to follow, we shouldn’t be so liberal in interpreting them in ways that make them supportive of our preferred style of debate.

And here’s the link–i find this interp to be much better than others’ i’ve seen, but I’ll let you write your own standards on why that is

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21264399/H-I-Committee-Interview

“In any event, I view the procedural debate as exciting, educational and rewarding to critical thinking and creativity. In my opinion, nothing on the on case debate can reach the level of depth a good T debate goes to, and thus I continue to run procedurals.”

^^truth

I want to thank everyone for continuing the debate in a respectful tone.

It’s really interesting to see the different perspectives we are bringing together on this site. I think it’s important to recognize that we all come from different standpoints and see debate differently depending on where we are. As a competitor, I would have completely agreed with Will and Brandon that procedural debates are a lot of fun.

However, as a coach (and judge) I lament rounds which fail to engage the substance of the topic. When I recruit students to NFA-LD debate I rarely present the fact that they will spend 45 minutes discussing what “domestic transportation infrastructure” means. Instead, I tell them that debating in NFA-LD will allow them to explore the pros and cons of reforming transportation – like roads, rails, sea or airways. That starts to get them interested because they travel on those all day long.

If we debate to engage the topic on a purely procedural level I would argue we are missing the entire point of the debate. I am never one to say that procedural issues should be ignored in the debate – but to completely disregard the topic is regrettable. Under that view of debate, at the end of the year you’d really know what the words in the topic meant but have no idea what the US can actually do to reform transportation infrastructure. Not to be rude but what a colossal waste of time.

If instead, we balance both procedural and substantive issues, hopefully both sides can see value in activity and debate. Furthermore, if procedural issues are truly reserve for cases which fall outside the best understanding of the topic, then truly those debates will be “exciting, educational and rewarding to critical thinking and creativity.” But, while I was not able to see the round in question, running any T on the STA Act case seems a lack of critical thinking at all – it is so mainstream topical – just look at the first page of the bill – it is basically the topic! “Surface Transportation” – check. “A blueprint for investment and reform” – check.

Hopefully the dominance of procedural debate can be a sign of early season tournaments before negative debaters have had time to research case specific strategies.

I think the problem is what your interpretation justifies… T is not necessarily just an indict on how predictable their case is, but is the interpretation of the resolution that their case justifies best for the event?

Your reasons to prefer the STA are that it says “surface transportation” on the front page of the bill. So this rationale would also justify Sen Hutchison’s Reform Act of 2009 which simply permits opt-out to the Fed Highway Trust Fund. That doesn’t affect physical infrastructure, but per your analysis, it meets all of your requirements for being topical.

I also think this is problematic because this bill is IMMENSE. Not only does it include massive reforms of the actual physical infrastructure (which I consider topical), but it includes reshaping the entirety of the bureaucracy in which transportation reform occurs. Additionally, though, it’s ACTUAL funding is complete extra topical in any of the ways Oberstar suggests–gas tax increase, oil speculation fee, etc.

Thus, the interpretation justifies not only plans that only in part include actual transportation infrastructure reform, but also plans that include multiple topical actions. If we can run the Oberstar bill, why not just run 16 different topical plans? Good luck outweighing that, neg.

As I said earlier, if T was a check on whether or not the judge intuitively thought the aff was topical, it probably wouldn’t be nearly as nuanced and complex an argument. But run in a competing interpretations framework, it’s an interesting debate, and one I think the aff should have to justify.

I heard T called whining about 5 times this weekend, which is interesting to me. My 1AC is topical per all my own indicts on the neg, but when I do hear T, I answer it just as I answer any other press on the stock issues: accurately and fairly. I don’t know why T has such a bum rap among certain critics, but I think that in order to dismiss it, some serious intervention is required.

I hope it’s apparent that I have research this topic, and this case, pretty well. In fact, in the semi-finals round, I had more information on what was in the bill than the aff did. But just because I know some things about it, why should I have to engage the debate in a way I don’t think is right for debate? I want to beat untopical cases with T so people stop running them. You all say education is so important, but you justify absurdly large research burdens with your interventions on T and predictability. I say education is important, and beating untopical cases on T is the way to, hopefully, limit down people’s understanding of what’s topical and what’s not, so that research can be guided, limited and in-depth.

Dear Brandon,

UNR will be mooching your phone interview. =]

Thanks

Travis

PS We will be sure to mention to mention in our analysis, “When Brandon from USAFA called the transportation committee…” Youll be famous!