Daniel M. Lingel

1990 - Space Exploration: The Policy Frontier

Debate is praised as an activity which provides students a forum for the development of critical thinking, research, and communication skills. Debate coaches are rewarded for their ability to instill in their students the tools necessary to become successful teachers, lawyers, businesspersons, politicians or any profession for that matter. Unfortunately, debate coaches and judges often leave their educational experiences behind when they sit behind a ballot. The debate coach stops teaching, while the non-coach judge neglects the two-way educational process that contributed to their intellectual development. The debate judge is an integral component of each round, but is often ignored or misunderstood because of the tacit pledge to be a silent observer. Debaters and judges have much to learn about and from each other and this can be nurtured by revealing decisions after debates and through oral critiques. The purpose of this article is to illustrate the benefits of post debate round critiques and revealing decisions, and how their use can contribute to the overall educational aspect of the activity.

An important aspect of any communication or education model is feedback. The participants in the process use feedback as decision-making information for the current as well as future communicative efforts. Teachers seek feedback in order to test whether their methods are educating the students, and students use feedback to judge their effectiveness for that teacher. In order to facilitate proper decision making, interaction must take place where feedback becomes give and take, occurring during or immediately following the message.

Frequently debate judges short circuit any feedback to the debate participants by failing to turn in a ballot. I believe this practice forgoes a very effective forum for judges to address the coach and the debaters. More often, however, debate judges provide a brief description of the debate, but the brevity of the comments makes it impossible to understand substantive suggestions for future debates. The ballot is too short to provide an actual recreation of the argumentative aspects of the debate, and the perceived need to "address" all the issue further contributes to the ballot's ineffectiveness as a feedback tool. In addition, debaters and coaches receive ballots after the tournament which prevents the use of the judge's feedback for debates on that weekend. Most reinforcement and learning theory demonstrate the superiority of temporal contingency of actions and feedback.

I am not advocating the elimination of the ballot, on the contrary, I think the ballot is an important educational tool for coaches and should be treated as such. A ballot should be written in addition to the oral critique advocated in this article. The ballot should be used for stylistic comments concerning skills that were rewarded or those that need to be developed or practiced. The ballot should be used to explain ways in which the debaters can better adapt to the judge either on stylistic or argumentative ground, and the ballot should explain the assignment of speaker points given their subjective nature. Also, ballots uniquely communicate to the coach and the debater when they are "cool" enough to listen. The ballot has a clear role, but it should not be the primary forum for feedback.

T'he best forum for the discussion of arguments, and thus the best source of feedback is an oral critique which also reveals the decision of the judge. Oral decisions contribute to preserving the primarily oral nature of the activity, and allows the process to return to two-way communication. Both the debaters and the judge can benefit from this process.

First, debaters benefit in several ways. Debaters profit from the immediate feedback which can be used in subsequent round. Often times debaters will argue the same affirmative or disadvantage in all of their debates on a given weekend because they think the argument is "unbeatable." The debate community, fortunately, does not always agree with the perceived invincibility of the argument, but the debater is denied their counsel. By discussing the arguments with the debaters after the debate, the judge is able to point out the weaknesses of the argument and make suggestions for its subsequent use. The debaters are also able to ask the judge questions concerning how the argument progressed in the particular debate, and receive hints on its argumentative strengths and weaknesses as well. The judge returns to the role as educator and communicator by providing this feedback.

Debaters also are able to better adapt to a particular judge on stylistic and argumentative grounds after they have experienced a post-round discussion. The interaction allows the debaters to become more comfortable with a particular judge and remove some of the tension before debates. Debaters are able to use the post-round discussion to understand a judge's preferences and dislikes. What happens, also, is that debaters find out many judges are competent who they generally write off or strike, and at a minimum debaters learn to appreciate pluristic viewpoints over time. I often hear judges complain because debaters do not adapt to them, but most of the time the debaters or their coaches do not know how to debate for that judge. The feedback provides the debaters with that information, which can be communicated to the coach.

The post-round discussion, as an educational forum, is superior to a philosophy sheet or to pre-round comments because it provides specific examples of the judges preferences, and allows the debates a chance to ask questions. Debaters can also learn the decision making process of the judge which allows the debater to incorporate that into their thinking and speeches. Judge adaptation is a very important aspect of any competitive debate, and there is no better source of information then the particular judge.

On a personal level, since I have been revealing my decisions, I have found them more complete and thorough, and I hope other judges would find a similar benefit in revealing their decisions. Anticipating the post-round provides an incentive to be careful and complete when evaluating arguments. I find the post-round discussion very stimulating and rewarding for myself and the debaters. The debaters feel comfortable with the decision after they have had the chance to ask some questions concerning particular arguments. I believe one of the strongest arguments for me is the education I have received about particular arguments through the discussion, and subsequently have used the coach and give advice. In addition, debates have become more interesting and more fun knowing I would be challenged and questioned after the debate. By discussing this issue with other coaches, I have found that my conclusions are not isolated and in fact other coaches and debaters feel better decisions are rendered pending a post-round discussion.

Despite the benefits, there have been some objections leveled against revealing decisions which I want to address at this point. Many of these objections were outlined in a recent paper by Roger Aden and Ann Burnett Pettus'. These objections include: loss of educational benefits, too much emphasis on competition, time limits, and behavioral changes in debaters. None of these objections assume a commitment on the part of debaters and judges to two-way open communication, but instead assume the exploitation of one side over the other.

The first objection of Aden and Pettus, and the basis of the subsequent objections, is that revealing a decision "suggests to the debaters that competition is more important than the search for a wise decision rather than a part of the endeavor for knowledge" (p. 446). If their assumption is true that debate is the search for truth, then the post round discussion can contribute to that search. The fact is the judge is going to decide affirmative or negative, but the post-round discussion can contribute to an understanding of the components of that particular search for truth. This point in the discussion elevates the process beyond the aspect of a game, and into an exploration of ideas, which is the role of an educator. However, I would argue that debaters do not consider debate a search for truth but more of a "game of wits," where argument development and strategies are the deciding factors. Revealing decisions can only contribute to a better understanding of these skills.

Competition is an integral factor of the debate process, and provides one of many reasons to participate in the game, but revealing a decision does not create a heightened sense of competition. Competitive debaters are a fact of life, but the practice. Debate is like any other culture where the participants ultimately come to believe this is how the situation ought to be handled. Although revealing a decision may create tension in some debaters, the anxiety of not knowing a decision is a greater source of tension for many more. Knowing a loss can motivate a debater to a higher level of debating just as easily as Aden and Pettus' search for truth. In addition, other reasons motivate a students to debate besides win/loss record such as better research, organization, and communication skills as well as camaraderie and travel. The benefits revealing can have to these reasons clearly outweigh the risk of heightened competitiveness.

According to Aden and Pettus, the heightened sense of competition contributes to a loss of the educational values of debate such as critical thinking skills and character development. As already mentioned, revealing the decision contributes to their development by providing another facilitator of questions and answers. Debaters will have the ability to formulate analytical skills from the informed critic directly, not through interpretation of a ballot Initially, even if the process seem ineffective or one-way, the debater will learn over time to give and take feedback which will facilitate two-way communication.

Another common objection to revealing decisions is that it takes up time and delays tournaments. If the debate community is committed to the educational value of the process then it will work the time to the schedule. Detailed discussions of the issues of the debate and a chance for questions can usually be led in about half an hour, which can be built into the schedule. In addition, most high school judges do not call for evidence, which means decisions are usually quick, allowing the discussion period. Time is not a single or a priori when we can contribute to the development of valuable communicative skills in debaters. And please, remember to turn in those white copies before giving your oral critique so you will not delay the tournament.

The final issue and perhaps the greatest deterrent to revealing is the fear of being confronted by an unprofessional, rude, out-of-control, competitive, angry debater. Stories have been embellished to include the debater who throws a chair, storms from the room, or quits debate because the judge said they lost. I think this is probably the same debater that after reading the ballots yells at the coach or punches the bus seat or the colleague. Well this is a concern, but as educators we should try to develop professionalism and responsibility in debaters and not give into or back down from a tantrum. As teachers, we learn to cope with inappropriate behavior in the classroom, so why then should there be resistance to applying the same methods in the post-debate discussion? The debater needs to understand the reasons for the loss and be able to ask questions which is not available after reading a ballot. The discussion provides a forum to vent the frustration, but to also find out the answers and the solutions to prevent the frustration from reoccurring.

SECTION TO DEBATERS

In order to achieve the benefits of revealing and the post-round discussion, debaters must play an active role. First, debaters must cooperate in the exchange of ideas without throwing the chair or throwing the tantrum. Somebody loses every debate, and if it is you, find out why and how you can prevent it from happening again. Second, the process can be maximized if debaters ask intelligent questions about the issues and the preferences of the judge. Only if you ask the questions, will you be satisfied about the decision. Third, debaters should write down the comments made concerning the arguments, as well as some comments concerning the judge's preferences. By keeping a record of the judge, you can better adapt the next time. Finally, use the information you received. Change the arguments or your style the next round and see if that makes a difference. In order to relieve some of the anxiety of the judges, debaters must cooperate and make the process truly educational because you will directly benefit by listening and contributing.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I urge every debate judge to give the post-round discussion a try. Even if you do not reveal your decision, which I encourage, at least participate in a post-round discussion of the issues. I think it can and has contributed to the development of the basic foundations of the debate activity and can benefit all the players. The discussion can contribute to critical thinking and communication skills, as well as promote cooperation and camaraderie instead of competition. So the next time you leave the classroom as teacher or student, remember to keep the educational process in mind when participating the debate. There are at least five players in a debate, and if they are all active the process can benefit everyone. And remember