|
The Fifth Person in the Room: The Importance of Judge Adaptation
Lyn Robbins, Baylor University 1987
- Latin American Politics: The Calculus of Instability |
|
Perhaps the single most common statement heard at any given debate tournament is a variant of the following: well, we should have won. We killed them. Everybody in the room thought we won. Even the other team admitted it to us. But the judge voted for them. What an idiot! Or worse: "We never had a chance. John Smith was judging that debate, and he won't vote on disads." Such complaints are invariably heard after debates, but before debates, far too many debaters concentrate on their opponents, their side, and even their room number, neglecting to note the judge. Consequently, when round strategies are determined (if such forethought actually takes place at all), little if any discussion of judge adaptation occurs at all. It is the thesis of this article that judge adaptation is a necessary step towards maximizing one's potential for winning a debate, and that such adaptation can be accomplished with some foresight and flexibility. Before examining the means of adaptation, it is necessary to discuss the reasons for adaptation. It does not take a student long in an introductory speech class to learn that along with the speaker and subject matter, the audience is a vital element of any speech. It would not make sense, if one were addressing an audience of third graders, to speak on the importance of Freudian psychoanalysis. Similarly, one would not speak to a convention of psychiatrists on the proper way to hold one's pencil when writing in cursive. The same principle should be applied to a debate round. The debaters involved should consciously consider the judge (or judges) and attempt to construct their arguments and positions in the best fashion to appeal to that judge. Any debater who realistically believes that judges dismiss all preconceptions of what theory, style, and/or substantive argument should be when they come into a debate round is living in dreamland. As Dallas Perkins puts it, why 'judges should feel compelled to abdicate to the debaters' any authority on what should go on in a debate is unknown, since debaters are obviously endowed with far less expertise on the subject than the coaches who have spent years in the activity judging.1 Scott Deatherage illustrates the necessity of judge intervention when he notes that "there is no way of evaluating many arguments in the absence of some subjective determinations. . . To ask a judge to ignore his or her own intelligence and experience in putting debates together is to reduce the judge to the role of a mindless information processor. . . Anyone who claims that they do not 'intervene' is regardless of the arguments in a debate round, the team that wins is determined by the judge. You do not win by being the smartest, or the fastest, or the cutest, or the most philosophical; you win because the judge says you do. Given these parameters, the ability to adapt to a given judge assumes huge importance. There are aspects of style that generally are helpful in adaptation to any judge. Perhaps it needs to be mentioned initially that style in and of itself is crucial. Many high school debaters seem to think that reading as much evidence as is humanly possible in an eight minute speech, and then adding ten cards just to ensure incomprehensibility, is the way to impress judges and win debates. Since their opponents are probably trying to do the same thing, somebody using this approach has to win, and the errant conclusion is that *We won because we were faster.' When such a team does meet an opposing team that makes a conscious effort at style in speaking substantive evidence arguments, the results are usually bad for the spewtrons. The first step, therefore, in adaptive style is clarity. No high school debater, and probably no college debater, is as clear as she/he deems themselves to be. Unless you think you are better off if the judge does not understand what you are saying, clarity should become the number one stylistic goal. But closely tied with clarity is confidence. There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance, but it is a difference that each debater can sense in himself or herself during a speech. The secret is to sound as if you are winning, whether you are or not, without being obnoxious. A debater who has given up in the round has done just that: given up the round. A final general stylistic suggestion is to paint a picture for the judge in the last rebuttal. This does not mean the 2NR should gasp 'Disads outweigh. Vote neg.' It means that in the respective last rebuttal for each team, an effort should be made to evaluate all of the remaining positions in a holistic perspective in an attempt to explain to the judge your view of why you have won the debate. If you are losing, that is all the more reason to do this, since a well-painted picture gives the judge something onto which to latch and which he or she can write on the ballot if there is the least bit of confusion as to the debate's outcome. There are several things that each debater can develop personally which are effective in a general sense of adaptation. The basis of what I mean here is that nobody likes a jerk. While no judge consciously votes for one team or another solely because of a friendship, having the judge like you cannot hurt. Simply being polite and professional is an easy way to endear yourself in some small way to the judge. The aspect of this personal adaptation that is most often neglected by high school debaters, though, is a failure to infuse personality into the debate. Too many debates sound alike. A humorless first affirmative constructive is followed by a first negative who spews forth as much information as he can. The second affirmative then takes a deep breath and does his best to blither more than did the 1NC. And so it goes. If a debater would catch his or her breath long enough to speak as a human being and not as a blender, the entire debate would be more enjoyable, and the judge will in all probability reward that debater. Once again, there is no set formula for this use of personality in the debate. For some debaters, it means humor; for others it certainly does not. Some people just aren't very funny. Putting your own personality into the debate serves to change the debate from a contest of words thrown at the judge to more of an interaction with the judge. The effect that personal adaptation can have on a debate is subtle, but there is no doubt that the team with a personality is in a better position than their opponents to win the debate. Of course, all means of adaptation are not so general. There are several different kinds of judges, and doing different things for different judges is essential. Despite the protestations of countless debaters, very, very few judges are actively trying to do you wrong when they vote for the other team. The secret to the decision calculus of many critics is found in a favorite statement of Dr. Robert Rowland: Judges are not rational creature, they are rationalizing creatures.' In practical terms, this means that judges are looking for a reason to vote one way or another, and the team that most clearly gives them that reason will be the team that wins the debate. I have attempted to separate judges into broad categories which I think are valid representations; nonetheless, it must be remembered that each judge is unique, and no set formula can encapsulate fully any given judge. The first judge is Dr. Houston Weird. Dr. Weird is the eminently respectable coach of a well-known college debater program. The second is Scott Studly, the successful college debater who lends his time and expertise at some reasonable price to the high school debate community. I group these two together because there is little difference in the approach which a high school debater should take in debating for these two gentlemen. Both Dr. Weird and Mr. Studly will probably be identifiable to the debaters by reputation. If the names do not tell you who they are, it will not take long to figure it out. These judges will radiate self-confidence to the debaters. They will flow the debate from the first word, and they will in general be clearly interested in and involved in the round. When a Dr. Weird or a Studly has been identified by the debaters, the adaptation procedures are relatively simple. It should be allowable to speak quickly and to advance any type of argument that you want to. A high school debater is unlikely to confuse these judges with his intricate theory arguments or advanced disadvantages. However, the appearance of Dr. Weird or Studly judging a high school debate round is relatively rare, since they will usually be heavily involved in the college debate season; consequently, high school debaters see them rather infrequently. The next judge is Mr. Bob Redford the experienced and up to date high school coach. For all practical purposes the high school debater should debate for Mr. Redford just as he would for Weird or Studly. Mr. Redford is also well-qualified to hear any argument that a high school debater wants him to hear, and he in fact hears them quite often, since he spends most of his weekends judging high school debates. After Mr. Redford, there is a significant break in the kinds of judges a high school debate team may expect. And it is at this point that adaptation takes on even more importance. The next judge on the list is Mrs. Jan Barley, who has been a high school debate coach for a long time. Many debaters will dismiss Mrs. Barley as being stupid. Such an assessment is unfortunate. First, Mrs. Barley is the type of judge most likely to hear a high school debate round. She judges every weekend and she loves debate. There are a lot more Mrs. Barleys out there than there are any of the other judges. Second, Mrs. Barley is NOT stupid. what is true is that she came into the debate activity in a different era, when theory was less complicated and speeds were much slower. But she still is attempting to judge the debates as best she can, and she will make a fair judgment to the best of her ability. She can be identified by her flow pad that she will dutifully have in front of her and perhaps by a small pin in the shape of a key. Adaptation for Mrs. Barley does not require the abandonment of debate skill theory. To the contrary, it takes a heightened skill to adapt in this instance, for what is required is a bit more explanation and persuasion than what Mr. Studly requires. Mrs. Barley will probably vote on the extinction disadvantage if it is well defended and explained. She would, however, definitely rather hear two well explained disadvantages than nine disads and three counterplans. (Such a statement actually applies to about 99% of the judges in the world, including Dr. Weird.) Next, we have Miss Landers, who may be helping out with the debate team for a year because some help was really needed, or who may be the math teacher who is just helping out for the one particular tournament. Whichever is the case, Miss Landers is virtually ignorant of debate theory and lingo, and appeals for her to vote on inherency or justification or even a disad will fall on deaf ears. To win Miss Landers' ballot, a debater must be able to articulate a simple but reasoned argument and then sell that argument throughout the debate. Obviously, speed of any kind is detrimental, since if Miss Landers is writing anything at all, her 'flow' will consist of a few notes that interest her. Once again, the debater must resist the urge to write the judge off as stupid; instead, the intelligent debater will find a way to sell an argument and win the ballot. The same strategy applies for Mrs. Cleaver, who came to the tournament to see her son Theodore compete in humorous poetry reading and got asked to judge one debate. To show off by reading four disads as quickly as you can is to beg for a loss. Explain to Mrs. Cleaver why you should win. If you have to tell her what topicality is (and you probably will), then do so. She will vote for the team whose positions she best understands. Both Miss Landers and Mrs. Cleaver will appreciate a great deal of eye contact and the use of proper grammar. If you are convinced that 'manly' debate is premised on burying your face in your flow and speaking in three word tags about your Rev", you will be manly and the other team will win her ballot. The choice is yours. The final judge I will mention is Bubba, the bus driver. In my years of experience with debate, I have never seen Bubba judge a debate. Nonetheless, the war stories bandied about concerning the round that got away invariably blame Bubba, who got sent in to judge four rounds in a row. If Bubba ever actually does judge you, then you should treat him as you would Mrs. Cleaver, attempting to explain a position and being clear in your delivery. Of course, the names here are purely fictional and not meant to indicate anyone in particular. The point is to delineate types of judges that require stylistic flexibility. Just as debaters must adapt their style, they should also adapt their arguments. For instance, Mrs. Cleaver is probably going to be confused by Domestic Malthus, and if she does understand it, she will probably be repulsed. Don't run counterwarrants in front of Mrs. Barley (or anyone else, for that matter). In short, be smart. The biggest obstacle to judge adaptation (other than ego) for those high school debaters who actually decide to try it is identification of judge types. I have attempted here to give some tips on how to determine what judge fits what category, but there is no failsafe system. That is why it is crucial for debaters to read ballots after tournaments, so that the particular biases and whims of judges can be identified and adapted to the next time that judge appears on the pairings. The process of judge adaptation is often a subtle and ongoing process, and it is definitely not the first concern of the beginning debater. If you are not yet certain of the prima facie issues or the order of the speeches, then judge adaptation should not be your first order of business. But once you as a debater have reached the stage where you are competing regularly enough to begin to understand the workings of debate, judge adaptation should be a goal of yours. That is, if you want to win. Remember, the winner of the debate is determined by the ballot written by the fifth person in the room. NOTES
|