Tactics and Techniques: A Communicative Assessment

Allan Louden, Wake Forest University

1982 - Arms Sales: Politics of Destruction

DEBATE IS WITHOUT RULES

The simple realization that there are few absolutes in debate is crucial for appreciating the activity. This is what makes debate exciting. A plan may be constructed in a certain way, but it doesn't have to be. A disadvantage may be presented in a certain way, but it doesn't have to be. A first affirmative may be enhanced by employing a contention structure but no rule requires this. Practices are often confused with official rules. Bordering on the power of natural law for some, these rules are simply conventions. They only reflect how something is done now, not how it has been practiced in the past or how it will be practiced in the future. Debate allows expression of innovation, creativity and individualism that is paralleled by few competitive activities. The only rigid prescription is a time limit. The debater must practice creativity within an accepted parameter much like the author approaches a short story or a poem. The few rules that do exist only serve to guide, challenge and enhance the debater's invention.

Why, then, is it so very difficult for a debater to move beyond the "standard approach" in presenting and analyzing arguments? Why are so many debates characterized with a sameness that leads to boredom through conformity? The answer can be found, in part, by understanding how we acquire knowledge in debate. Our insights into skills and practices are basically learned in three ways. First, we can simply read sources, like the articles that appear in this section. This method of learning is effective, but seldom carries the personal authority of the other methods. Secondly, we learn about debate practices by establishing and testing personal hypotheses. The basically inductive process that concludes "when I do A in a debate I secure the desired result B" develops strongly implanted habits. They often persist long after their usefulness is suspect. Thirdly, we learn about debate through modeling the teams we debate or observe. We evaluate the probable consequences of a particular practice (e.g. speed) by watching the model and adopt those we perceive have positive consequences. This patterning of debate behaviors on the successful or admirable, while very important, carries liabilities when the effective and ineffective practices become indistinguishable or the assumption is made that what works for others must work for that individual as well.

There is no problem with the above ways of acquiring debate knowledge. The problem arises when we make the assumption that what we have learned is the only way to approach a debate. These assumptions, which we all hold to varying degrees, limit our ability to evaluate our personal skills, limit our ability to find unique approaches to arguments and limit our ability to take an actively creative approach. In other words, a myriad of possible approaches go unexamined because "debate is supposed to be done this way." An underlying assumption which always seeks to find a better way of doing what we presently do would make debate a much richer intellectual activity.

DEBATE WITHOUT A JUDGE

Just having made the point that there are few rules in debate, here is an exception. It would be impossible to play a zero-sum game in which one side wins and one side loses without rules to establish how this is decided. In debate a third party fills this function. My argument, however, is that many debaters become so enamored with their research, briefs and techniques that the central idea that debate is communication gets ignored. The judge occupies a space in the room that is equidistant from the teams but, from their perspectives, s/he might as well not be there. In effect, we have debates without a judge. Only examining our implicit assumptions about judges and the communication process will the critic be welcome back into the debate.

Debaters often forget the nature of judges, instead substituting a set of stereotypes and prejudices for the real person actually sitting at-the back of the room. Categorizing is somewhat necessary to organize our environment into workable units, but it is also dangerous and undoubtedly accounts for many unnecessary losses. How often do debaters perform for the "types" of judges that they think are listening to them and miss all the cues of how this particular person is responding? This happens because of unstated assumptions we hold about debate and the role of the critic. Let me review some of these assumptions and indicate how a debater might learn to remain more open-minded to what is actually happening in a round.

Most would agree that the ideal judge is one who is unbiased, open-minded and knowledgeable in the area being debated. While these are noble aspirations, critics are fortunately human and a speaker must factor this into his/her presentations. Judges can meet high-quality standards and still reach diametric decisions. This does not mean that these judges are unfair or incompetent as many debaters and coaches want to believe. It simply means that in a particular round their world views are different . Many debaters, however, tenaciously hold to the idea that there must be a right decision. That perspective is not realistic. Debate as a communicative event is inherently subjective. Whenever a judge receives a message he will relate this new information to his existing attitudes, knowledge and feelings. The critic cannot, as hard as he may try, totally respond as a blank slate. He will test the incoming message against the views he already holds and respond to this information as well as the external message. This phenomena may, in part, explain how unbiased and informed judges reach totally opposite decisions when presented with the same basic data. One only needs to look at actual tournament rounds to find evidence. This year at the Collegiate National Debate Tournament, in the final round and both semi-finals the decisions were 3-2. These rounds included the best four teams with panels selected by the teams for their expertise. What happened in the rounds, as filtered through human judges, became individualized.

Debaters often view a judge in ways that do not account for this human element. The judge becomes synonymous with a computer which ingests the information presented and reaches the one correct answer. This v viewpoint is reflected in the types of statements one often hears at tournaments. For example, "I read the crucial card and the judge was too stupid to catch on," or "How could he vote that way, after all, I read four cards for every one they read?" The judge is seen as a machine which has malfunctioned. The solution is to replace the machine with another which could Process information in a predictable manner (in other words, as the debater would process it). Since the problem is with the judge, the debater is absolved of any responsibility to find more effective rhetorical strategies.

A much more constructive use of one's energies would be to find ways to improve the interaction with the judge. In establishing a communicative link it may be helpful to try and see how the critic's role is defined from the judge's perspective. First, almost universally judges view themselves as fair-minded and honest. Most will agree that remaining impartial is difficult, yet judges value their integrity. Since this is the case, there are a number of implications as to how a debater might approach a round. The speaker needs to understand that since judges seek to be neutral they will try to remain outside of the process. They will, for example, avoid feedback which may influence the round. This behavior is often misinterpreted as disinterest or even negative response. Even more pointedly, it can be interpreted as further evidence of the judge's bias and lead to conclusions like, "What's the use, we're bound to lose anyway."

In addition, tailoring your speech to a reality that is in your head and missing what a judge may actually be thinking can have a team, for example, talking down to a very intelligent judge or assuming that a "highly qualified" judge is happy to only hear jargon and gamesmanship. But there is an important difference between an unintelligent and an uninformed critic. A debater faced with an unknown or different judge should not assume that judge to be stupid. Adaptation does not require debates to degenerate to the lowest common denominator. Instead, explanation of your viewpoint is essential, and less risky than unclear labeling that can be applied at the judge's discretion. Communication is inherently imperfect. Meanings aren't transmitted, and the message receiver never understands completely the message being sent, in any context. Thus the goal of the debater should not be concerned solely with the message but rather with eliciting the meanings in the critic's head.

Second, judges tend to view themselves in relation to the debaters. They may, for example, have positive or negative feelings toward the teams involved in a debate. In whichever way the judge defines these relationships, the debater should avoid superimposing his/her evaluations of the judge ' s position. These judgements are usually inaccurate (at least, in degree of intensity) and tend to lock the debater into a pattern that 'is highly resistant to change. What happens, for example, when it is concluded that the judge "hates us" or "hates our school?" (Remember that even if this is the case, the critic is trying to be fair and, given the proper input, can vote either way.) If we do not think s/he is unbiased we effect our own ability to debate well. Rather than constructing scenarios of the outcome, energies should be directed toward increasing one's own credibility.

Probably more important than such skills as research ability and fluency, the credibility of a debater is paramount in affecting the judge's receptivity to your message- How can a debater influence his,/her credibility in order to change how the judge defines the relationship? Consider first the credibility that a team brings to the round. This external credibility might include the reputation a team or school enjoys, what other competitors may say about you or prior experience with a particular judge. If the team's reputation is negative or neutral, it does not have to continue that way, as many debaters assume. Interacting with judges during the year and approaching tournaments professionally can add much to building positive feelings toward a team. If the critic likes a debater or team s/he is then more receptive to their messages. Judges usually are not as much "biased" toward the people that they like as they are disproportionately prone to hear their arguments.

Too often, debaters assume that credibility is only affected by one's reputation. Probably more important is the credibility that is established during the actual round. Even if a team suffers from a lack of reputation and is debating one of the "top" teams, they can offset this advantage by how they build their credibility in the round. How can this best be accomplished? Consider first that credibility, is a multidimensional concept. Research has indicated that the components of source credibility include expertise and trustworthiness of the speaker. It is, however, quite possible for a communicator to display one and not the other of these components. For example, in the 1980 presidential elections many voters viewed Carter as honest and trustworthy but not as having the expertise or competence to direct the country for another four years. Certainly, we can learn from the campaign debate where Reagan, by successfully fielding questions, was able to silence the reservations that many voters ha about his "expertise to be President."

Similar principles apply in a debate round. The most effective debaters know what they are talking about and act that way. In contrast, credibility is not enhanced by opening speeches with disclaimers like "I really don't know what I'm talking about," or "This may not be important, but..." A positive, confident manner does affect a judge's perception of how much weight to give to your arguments.

Expertise interacts with the factor of trustworthiness /honesty as well. Nothing is gained by acting like an expert on something if it becomes clear you are faking it. Being honest pays rich dividends in the credibility the judge assigns to the arguments you offer. In an actual round debaters can enhance this dimension in a number of ways. In cross-examination, more direct and honest answers (even an "I don't know," occasionally) or admitting the legitimacy of certain positions your opponent takes, often are more worthwhile in establishing this dimension of credibility. In addition there is the side benefit of raising one's analysis above the dangerous level of just denying whatever you hear. The judge who sees you as trustworthy will more readily, listen to what you have to say and assign greater weight to what you do say. Credibility is an intangible property- but it is more likely than any number of briefs to give you the communicative edge in a round.

One final idea deserves mention concerning the communicative dimension of a debate. It is important to realize that the debater and judge are responding to different events during a round. The debater, for example, hears arguments in relation to what he expects to hear, what he has answers prepared for, and preconceived notions of relative importance of the argument. While a debater may instantly evaluate an opponent's argument as stupid, the critic does not have the luxury of a singular viewpoint. The judge must try to extend prima facie credence to the arguments of both sides. Because the debater's role requires systematic selective perception and the judge's role requires the opposite they necessarily view events very differently. The critic normally is in a much better position to hear what has actually happened in a round since s/he listens to both sides as presented. An evaluation, oral or written, can offer valuable insight to debaters in learning to view the round as the third party does. This sensitivity should, in turn, enhance one's ability to communicate with the judge and make improved selection of the crucial arguments.

In conclusion, to improve the communication process in a round is to view the judge as unique. S/he "actively" enters the process, bringing his/her attitudes, self-perception and personal motivations to bear in making the decision. The debater who is open-minded to realities beyond his own should find s/he has acquired perhaps the most important debate skill of them all.