http://www.victorybriefs.net/vbd/cat_ld.html 11/Aug/2004 21:30

Reflections on GBN (or Things We Do To Ourselves That Make Us Victims of "Bad" Judging)

As many of you know, I typically do not judge debate rounds (at least not prelims)... Archer/Brentwood has the luxury of having people like Leah Halvorson, Josh Stephens, Sean Mumper... so I usually don't have to judge. This weekend, though, I forgot to put Leah down for Archer, so I judged many more rounds than I typically do... It was very enjoyable, though I had much less time to spend with my team and others. That said, I did leave with some random thoughts for people to ponder...

I think many debaters forget that debate is a communicative activity. Quite often, there is a fundamental disconnect between how a debate is experienced within a debater's own head and how a debate is manifested in the real world. The two often have very little to do with each other. What makes sense in your own mind, often does not make sense to people in the real world. Or you explain about 80% of the argument, and hope the judge fills in the remaining 20% for you. Similarly, if you have a CRITICAL argument that you want to MAKE sure the judge gets, it makes sense to slow down for it, or over-explain it. The key is to make sure you penetrate the judge's brain.

I also think debaters need to learn how to debate in a way that does NOT invite intervention. I noticed EIGHT things debaters did that necessarily invited intervention:

(1) failing to debate standards - I find that most debaters do not know how to debate standards. For the record, saying "my opponent cannot meet his/her standard" or "I think you have to look to my standard first because we're talking about governments" aren't really good responses. The first is actually an argument about "meeting the standard" and not whether the "standard is valid in the first place." The latter is just conclusory. Yet it was rare any debater ever did anything other than that. Instead, debaters just try to win both standards. The result? If one debater wins one, and the other wins the other... the JUDGE CHOOSES? intervention right there.

(2) failing to impact arguments - particularly when there are cold-dropped cards or arguments, debaters tend to just label them "VOTERS" and say "I WIN," without saying why... They do not link them to any person's standard. They fail to show how the drop IMPACTS the remaining arguments in the round, etc. I imagine most debaters expect they should win whenever something they label a voter is dropped cold. But that's not how the real world works. Those arguments need to be weighed against the other arguments in the round. If you don't impact them fully, you invite intervention! For example, in one round, there was an argument that the AFF's value shouldn't apply because we're talking about the specific context of the government. AFF dropped it. NEG pointed that out, but never told me what to do with that other than "so vote for me." That's a huge jump! So unless I'm willing to blindly "vote for you" without really knowing why that drop means "vote for you," I'm going to have to INTERVENE and figure things out for myself.

(3) dueling assertions - many debates I saw came down to dueling assertions. For example, the AFF will claim conflict leads to nuclear war. NEG will claim, intervention will actually lead to backlash which leads to nuclear war. AFF will say, neg dropped the argument that conflict leads to nuclear war, and intervention won't. NEG says, intervention will lead to backlash, so nuke war. AFF will say, vote on conflict=nuke war. ARGH!!! It could be an amazingly good technical debate... but it's nothing more than dueling assertions. How is a judge supposed to decide? Some judges ask for cards after the round and decide for themselves which was better. But that's INTERVENTION! And by debating that way, you asked for it!

(4) conclusory arguments - I also found that many debaters simply make conclusory arguments. For example: many negs argued that the "AFF did not establish the existence of a positive obligation, and thus does not actually affirm." I am positive many negative debaters were frustrated with how many times a judge didn't vote on that voter. Rather than just TELL me the conclusion that the AFF did not establish an obligation, SHOW me. Be specific: show me how the AFF arguments did not create an obligation. SHOW not TELL and you'll have a greater chance of winning the argument.

(5) going for too many arguments - I think debaters like Steph Bell, Jed, Jon, etc. are leading the pack in going for BIG PICTURE debating... really making sure there is a position that Affirms or Negates. I think forgetting the big picture is problematic... instead, debaters try to spread out millions of little arguments. The end result? Aff wins some of them. Neg wins some of them. But without knowing how the pieces fit together -- in a big picture -- you're letting the judge do it for you. The result? Intervention.

(6) not addressing the opponent's rhetoric - debaters need to show how their rhetoric and arguments TAKE OUT the opponent's rhetoric and arguments. For example, there were many rounds where one debater would repeatedly use the terms "moral weight" or the terms "selectivity"... and it would shock me that the other debater would not even MENTION those words... You can't leave it to the judge to figure out how your arguments apply to the opposing debater's rhetoric... otherwise? you got it... INTERVENTION.

(7) running weird arguments - I encourage untraditional arguments. But I don't like weird for weird. I'll let you in on a secret... there are three types of judges. Those who don't understand the weird arguments. Those who do somewhat understand them, but are slightly skeptical. And those who love weird for the sake of weird. Except for the last category, expect this as the truth: if you run weird arguments EXPECT that you have to DO MORE to win them. Why? One, to make judges comfortable with them. Two, to make sure that judges understand them. Third, you can't assume judges will fill in any blanks or steps in the logic the way you would... because the argument is weird.

(8) not emphasizing core arguments enough - Another psychological truth. Most judges don't feel comfortable deciding a round based on somethign that didn't seem to be a central issue in the round. Thus, most judges don't LIKE to vote on a blipped response that was dropped, etc. (this doesn't mean they won't, but they don't LIKE to). What do I think you should do then? If you're going to go for it, make sure you spend some time with it... to get the judge comfortable with its importance... otherwise, if you spend too little time on it, and rely solely on the fact it was dropped without reexplaining it and its significance, don't be surprised when you don't win because of it...

Any way... those were just some preliminary thoughts... I invite others to post life lessons too... The bottom line: we can complain about judges... we can complain about intervention... but the smart thing to do is to figure out how we can control the randomness by becoming even better... And thinking about the little things we do that invite randomness by less-than-perfect judges will lead us down the right path....


Posted by Victor at 05:08 PM | Comments (6)