|
The Anomalies of Debate Judging
David Walsh, University of Kentucky 1991 - Addressing
Homelessness : Social Services in the 1990's |
|
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. " -Luke 6, 37 After eight years of debating at both the high school and college levels, I have observed several anomalies of the judges. These quirks cloud the judgment of the community so that many times debates are improperly evaluated. The purpose of this article is the explain the flaws that even some of the most highly respected judges have. However, the purpose is not and should not be interpreted as outright criticism of the small unique group of masochists who have devoted their weekends to hearing shallow discussions of complex issues at light speed while dodging spittle from egocentric young adults. Instead, this article proceeds from the assumption that since the prime objective of debaters is to persuade imperfect critics to cast a ballot in their favor, an understanding of judging eccentricities should be valuable to the practicing debater. Sometimes it makes sense to play to a judge's predispositions; other times it will make more strategic sense to try to overcome them. But for either strategy to be effective, one requires insights into the patterns judges typically follow in making decisions. This article attempts to provide such insights. Of course, not every judge, at every level of debate will exhibit these attributes, but enough do that debaters should be wary. Since top ten lists seem to be in vogue as of late, I will present my ideas in a top ten format I will also try to explain ] my arguments clearly, but who knows what might happen in i the heat of debate-I might just end up blipping my way 1 through to the end. Number
10 Many judges either really like or really dislike topicality, so that the debate on that issue might be determined regardless J: of what either side says. Sometimes those judges that really like "T debates" are so willing to pull the nigger that they even s make arguments for the negative which the negative never c said (or even imagined). How many times has the affirmative made an argument in the post-round discussion to which the judge responds with a "new" argument in favor of the negative? (Or, when pressed, the judge resorts to "well, I just don't think this case is topical.") A more common error is the bias against topicality. Many judges reject the issue out of hand, accepting any reasonable interpretation where reasonable means not voting negative. After a debate about whether the sale of bear penises and gallbladders was a substantial portion of U .S. trade policy, my partner and I were once told by a judge with a West Texas drawl tainted by a near-Boston accent that he carne just about as close to voting on T as he ever would which made us feel gushy inside but not very satisfied The solution for judges would be evaluate the argument like any other, with neither like or dislike. But the real problem stems from the debaters' desire to push the giddy outer limits of the definitional realm. If the debaters would stop choosing cases so far out on the fringe that hallucinogens were necessary for them to be dreamed up, then the judges might stop randomly trying to correct the situation by never voting on topicality or nearly always voting for it Number
9 Many judges believe that the quicker the impact, the more weight it should be given in evaluating the debate. A fifty percent chance of nuclear war in twenty years will almost always lose to a twenty-five percent chance of nuclear war in ten. Time-frames have become the be all and end all of judging debates so that debaters sometimes only have to breath an assessment of "time-frame" to win the round. A more accurate way of evaluating a debate would to calculate greatest enhancement in the probability of long-term survival. Time-frame should only be relevant when an equal probability is assigned to each scenario. In today' s time-frame oriented view, a ninety percent chance of an energy shortage starting World War m in fifty years will lose to a four percent chance that Kremlin hardliners will kick Gorbachev out of power, reigniting the Cold War, and causing World War m in five years. If judges would take the time to assess the varying probabilities of the competing scenarios, a clearer evaluation of risk could be determined If the associated risks are close, time-frames could be important, but, if not, time frames should be irrelevant Remember, whoever supports the best chances for long-term survival. Number
8 As Jonathan Schell has written in his book The Fate of the Earth. nuclear war will be the end of life on our planet; thus, the impact would be infinite. Even the smallest risk of nuclear war should be avoided since the smallest fraction times infinity (some large impact) is still infinity. This perverse view of risk assessment has been incorporated into debate so that any risk of nuclear war outweighs non-nuclear scenarios even if their probabilities much are higher. For example, a ten percent risk of nuclear war destroying all human lives would imperil 500 million lives (10% times 5 billion lives). This risk would nearly always defeat a sixty-five percent risk of a famine killing one billion people despite the fact that the risk of the famine is 650 million lives. Even "fuzzier impacts" like quality of life get shafted worse. In a debate I judged on the high school space topic, the affirn1ative claimed to solve the North-South gap, preventing war and giving better lives to billions of people living in the South. The negative handily defeated the war scenario but said nothing about the other impact At the end of the debate the four other judges on the panel either said that there was no impact to North-South or said nothing when in reality there was a truly substantive impact in terms of quality of life remaining on that advantage. One solution for judges is to try to translate non-comparable impacts into some common denominator, like lives. However, the real comparison should come from the debaters who should try to make their own comparisons, weighing the competing risks instead of tossing it into the judge's lap, which is like shooting craps only with better odds since the judge can only "screw" one team per debate. A second point worth remembering is the limits of risk analysis. There is always some non-zero risk that an affirmative plan will cause a nuclear war (as well as a non-zero risk of the trn-that it will prevent one). Taking Schell's logic to its limit, every public policy would be evaluated first and foremost on the basis of its miniscule effect on the probability of annihilation (in fact, contemporary debate comes pretty close to doing this). This kind of micro-risk analysis truly subject~ us to what moral philosopher Daniel Callahan calls "the tyranny of survival." World ending impacts are obviously important, but not so much so that every other, qualitative dimension of life should be completely subordinated to them. Thus, I would qualify my previous comment about trying to minimize the chances for long term human survival by adding that when a policy's impact on survival is trivial, other important (and far more probable) concerns should generally outweigh. Number
7 In debate today, the team with an isolated scenario for their impact will beat the team with an equal risk of an impact that is systemic. A specific scenario is an isolated, specific explanation of a chain of events, like instability in South Korea prompting North Korea to invade, resulting in U.S. intervention and U.S.-Soviet or U.S.-Chinese war. However, the specific scenario is just one hypothetical chain of events which might result in one shot at the impact. Judges latch onto these impacts because they can clearly point out what happens where, when, how, etc. A systemic cause of an impact is an attempt to explain why certain events, like war, occur. For example, many argue that the loss of hegemonic status for the U.S. would tend to create global instability since empirically the fall of the hegemon has caused instability. The loss of hegemony gives many shots at various wars that could globally occur with any number of superpowers being involved. Great Britain's decline has been seen as the source of the global chaos which occurred in the 1930s. However, in a debate sense, such an impact weighs relatively little since the judge cannot point out the exact chain of events which result in the impact. As one person from one of those Ivy League Schools very near Canada asked, "Why do you always go for that hegemony impact? Its time frame is so far off, and the impact is so vague." Time-frame is answered above. Vagueness is irrelevant since the potential for multiple chances of a war are higher than a scenario with its one chance of war. The future never unfolds in precisely the way in which someone predicts. It is by understanding the causal forces which underlie all of the potential futures which could unfold that catastrophe can best be foreseen and averted. A fifty percent chance that instability in South Korea might cause the impact exists. But that is only one risk of war. A fifty percent chance that loss of hegemony might cause the impact exists as well. Here, there are many risks of a war since the impact creates instability that could cause war anywhere. If judges would risk voting on the less specific chain of causation, a more intelligent decision might be reached. Debaters would stop trying to invent another way to string together power- worded cards with creative thinking ...Nab, what am I thinking; there's probably a greater risk of space aliens landing on my computer than me finishing this article. Number
6 The first time a new argument is run, a judge is not likely to vote for it unless one side completely blows it. The problem with running new arguments is that the debaters are not very good on the argument when they fun it for the first time so they do not explain it very well. This situation allows the other team to play on that problem, and they further try to confuse the issues. The result of the mass confusion and chaos is that the judge votes on the old, tired, generic argument that s/he understands and can explain in the post-round discussion. Thus, the risk of Gorbachev falling from power will (at least until he is kicked out of power or croaks) win more debates than creative new arguments. Also, the old argument is tried and true. It was won debates in the past and will do so in the future. Thus it has a "rep factor" which helps it win debates even when it should not Furthermore, when judges encounter a new argument, their critical faculties are often awakened from their usual slumber. Thus, the judge will scrutinize the initial and internal link of the argument far more critically than s/he would with a more familiar argument The solution here would involve better understanding of the new argument by the team initiating said argument Even more important than thorough knowledge is presentation in a manner so that enables the judge to understand it The role for the judge should be to listen in cross-examination since the argument will probably be explained there. If still confused the judge should maybe ask quiet questions (so as to not disturb the other teams preparation) to further his or her understanding. If teams would clearly explain their arguments and judges make an attempt to understand them during the debate, new arguments might win more often so we could put the old arguments to rest in that filing cabinet full of old useless debate briefs. In sum, judges need to work harder to suspend the skepticism with which we typically respond to novel ideas. And debaters need to work harder to explain the logic of their still diaper-clad brain children. Number 5 There is no number 5. However, number 5 exists here so that this is a top ten list instead of a top nine list I do hope that there were no rising expectations. Number
4 In many debates the affirmative development of a twenty card advantage only has a weight equal to the shallow shell of the negative disadvantage of four cards. Or, a two card turn on a disadvantage is equal in weight to the ten link cards the negative read. No one stops to think that the twenty cards give the affirmative position more credibility or support in the real world. Judges should give credit to the argument with more development since it is better explained and supported, but generally they do not. This aberration has probably increased the shallow nature of debate as it encourages the proliferation of the arguments since depth does not count. An unfortunate corollary of this is that numbers of cards are more important than quality. Many judges are correcting this problem these days, but it is still something of a concern. Man: times one team reads tons of horrible, highlighted, blippy card~ while their opponents read lengthy cards with explanation ant examples. If the judge is in a card counting mode, the team with better evidence is sometimes punished because they read fewer cards. The truth is that more cards do not necessarily prove their point, especially since most of the blurbs will not be worth the nickel it cost to use the copying machine. The solution is for judges to allow credit for development. If the risk associated with twenty card advantage is equal to the risk of the four card disadvantage, then the twenty card advantage should prevail since it is better explained and supported. If judges employed this criterion, debaters would soon start developing their arguments and reading longer cards. Number
3 In many instances the affirmative advantage or the negative disadvantage is turned at some level which only captures the opposing team's impact. This is not really a turn since both teams to some extent solve for the impact For example, Team A preserves U.S. power to deter third world conflicts. Team B argues that U.S. power prevents the use of nuclear deterrence which better deters Third World conflict. The problem that many judges have in this instance is that they view the advantage as being completely turned. Actually, the edge for Team B is only an increment of better deterrence since Team A still deters third world conflicts. Since debate judges do not evaluate that increment, they do not incorporate other arguments into their decision which might outweigh that increment They give Team B the impact of deterring third world conflicts (which would be fairly large) instead of the minor impact of deterring the conflicts better. Instead, judges should try to evaluate the magnitude of impact from the competing claims which would allow a better assessment of the debate. Number
2 Judges tend to be overly critical of the links to disadvantages, demanding precise causation of the chain of event In some cases if the plan is not part of the link card, then the negative has no chance of winning the disadvantage. The problem stems from the inequitable view of affirmative solvency. Here, claims are accepted at face value when in reality the relationship between solvency and the plan is just as tenuous as the link and the plan. In fact, it is very rare for the solvency to refer exactly to what the plan does. The solution is for judges to examine the link to the disadvantage as closely as they evaluate the solvency. If they . want to be a "link dick" on the disadvantage, they should do the same to the solvency. But a word of caution for them; they might need to be prepared to vote on presumption and therefore better create an intricate view of what presumption means Number
1 A takeout is very rarely (if ever) absolute. Too often a judge decides that the affirmative wins a takeout on the disadvantage and says that there is no risk of it while there is something on die case; thus s/he votes affirmative. Sometimes when pressed hard enough in the post-round discussion a debater can get the judge to say that s/he just does not do risk assessment The problem with this judge's decision-making process is that he or she has done some risk assessment in determining that there is something on the case (which should really translate: there is something on the case despite the twenty negative case takeouts) while he or she insists "I just don 't do risk assessment " What really should happen is that the winning of a takeout should function to reduce the risk associated with the disadvantage, not take it to zero. In many instances even if the affirmative won all of their takeouts, there is still some risk of the disadvantage, even if it is less probable than walking outside and being hit by a meteorite. In a debate where the affirmative clearly won one of its takeouts on the disadvantage and the negative partially wins twenty of their case takeouts, today with many judges, the negative would always lose because the debate is muddled on the case whereas the affirmative clearly wins a takeout However, the negative might deserve to win. Imagine that the takeout on the disadvantage reduced it to a risk of ten percent Also, pretend that the takeouts each diminish the case by four and a half percent The total reduction of the case is ninety percent, leaving ten percent remaining. Thus, instead of simplistically viewing the takeout as absolute, since the risks are equal, maybe time-frame analysis would be more appropriate in this situation. A corollary to this problem is created in the situation where the affirmative does not clearly win any takeout to the disadvantage. Many judges would then say that the negative is winning the disadvantage and making inroads in the case, thereby voting negative. This may be less rational than it initially appears. First, the initial probability of the case may have been much higher than that of the disadvantage; thus, even after inroads are made, the case risk might still be higher. Or, the case impact might be enough greater that even with reduced probability it would outweigh the disadvantage. What the judges should do is attempt to accurately assess the complex total package of both systems with an attempt to carefully evaluate the relative impact of each takeout and how significantly it was won by one side or another. This method makes a risk assessment of each side's arguments and tries to fairly evaluate the impacts. The debaters, of course, should try to weigh the arguments before the round is over by making assessments. Such claims can be effective if couched in terms such as, "Even if they win this argument, we still win because..." Assessing public policy arguments is a complex process and one in which both judges and debaters need to acquire a good deal more sophistication. Advantages and disadvantages are predictive, probabilistic statements which require careful evaluation; they are rarely completely won or completely lost More subtle calculating of the risk would improve debate. At the very least, judges should be consistent-they should employ the same standards of evaluation equally for both sides. In my article I have tried to offer constructive criticism of judges in the debate community. This is not an attempt to be a disgruntled graduate whining about losses. I am thankful to those judges who tirelessly listen to our banter. I only hope that my evaluations of them are in some fashion heeded because if they are I believe that the judging pool can only improve. If one judge changes his or her ways due to one of my criticisms, I will consider my article a success. ------------------------ David Walsh graduated
from the University of Kentucky, where he concluded a debate career that
featured an appearance in the quarterfinals of the NDT |