Erik Walker, Samford University

1983 - American Justice : Courting Disaster

Recently, a great deal of controversy over the quality and value of academic debate has arisen. The conflict centers around the focus of the activity with respect to both argument and style. Many argue that the sport has evolved into "mindless incoherent delivery of unrealistic arguments." Others contend, with equal vigor, that the move toward slower, more audience-related debate is creating an "unintelligent simplistic process that anyone with a theater background can succeed in." While these Positions are obviously extreme and exaggerated, some truth exists in both criticisms. But regardless of the merit of the claims, the fact remains that a great deal of diversity in judging philosophy has arisen. it is pointless to debate which feelings are correct, for students will be judged by those of both philosophies. The Purpose of this presentation is to aid the high school debater in adapting to different judging views so that he can effectively compete, regardless of who holds the white copy.

The importance of effective judge adaptation cannot be overstated. All the talent and evidence in the world is valueless if the judge is unwilling to listen. In the very close rounds, which all debaters will frequently encounter, the team who offers the positions and delivery most desired by the judge will have the greatest likelihood of victory. How often has a tournament been decided by the seedings which were determined by the decision in one close preliminary round? How often to 2-1, 3-2, or even 4-3 decisions arise in elimination rounds? If a team is able to read their judge(s) and debate accordingly, they will be able to defeat even those teams with presumably more talent and evidence.

Essentially judging philosophies differ in two general areas: argument and style. With respect to these concepts, there are the conservative, moderate, and liberal elements. Each of these will be examined such that the student can both identify which beliefs a given judge holds and how to effectively adapt to those theories.

The first area of importance concerns the type of arguments judges prefer. Conservative judges generally prefer logical, common sense arguments. They favor positions that real world decision-makers would advocate. For example, against a case which claims that a ban on handguns would reduce crime, a conservative argument judge would be far more persuaded by a circumvention claim than by a disadvantage which argues that saving lives yields increased beef consumption yields less grain exports yields starvation yields nuclear oblivion. Against a legalize child pornography case, all judges would appreciate a backlash disadvantage. What would be relevant is the level of impact claimed. Arguing that it would result in urban riots and decreased civil liberties would be acceptable arguing that it would yield a perception of weakness hence Soviet pre-emptive attack would be less effective. A case which claims that a ban on arms sales to China could avert a world war is palatable1 a case claiming that a ban on the sale of thumbscrews to Uruguay would reap the same benefits is not.

One subset of this category consists of the traditionalists. These are the critics partial to arguments relating to the prima facie burdens. Arguments concerning topicality, significance, inherency, solvency, and workability are most important. Hence in debating the arms sales to China case, evidence indicating that U.S. sales are insignificant, that the Soviets do not fear China's token military effort, or proof that other nations would sell equivalent weapons would be far more effective than searching for unusual disadvantages and unique counterplans.

The liberal-argument judges represent the other extreme. These critics generally favor the highly creative, original strategies. The argument need not be real world in nature and, indeed, it is often desired that they be slightly unrealistic. These judges will accept virtually any position as long as it is well-evidenced and explained. Surrender counterplans and disadvantages claiming that nuclear war is beneficial, that economic improvements yield global devastation, and that saving lives in the U.S. yields more deaths in the less-developed nations would be convincing. The liberal judges typically require that the negative demonstrate that the affirmative proposal should be rejected. Presumption is not as important to these judges, and far less burden is placed on the affirmative to meet the stock issues. To compensate for this, they accept "high impact, low probability" arguments. In other words, proving that a proposal has even small potential for creating enormous damage is sufficient to warrant its rejection. Of course this can benefit the affirmative as well, since they need not prove absolute causality.

The moderate-argument judges are those who fall between these two extremes. They prefer realistic arguments but will accept positions somewhat untenable, if adequately supported. They require proof of a significant defect in the present system by the affirmative, but their standard for such is much lower than that of the conservatives. They could be convinced that economic growth is undesirable but might have difficulty accepting the notion that nuclear war is our only hope of survival. This is not to say they would reject the argument on its face, but they would place a high burden of proof on the team advocating such a position.

The other area involving disparate judging relates to the manner in which positions are delivered, i.e., the style of presentation. Conservative judges view style as being very important and critical to effective argumentation. A speech involving emphasis of key points, voice inflection when appropriate, extensive use of the vocabulary, and fluent delivery are essential. In other words, good speaking skills are crucial. The attitude of a team is also important. If the partners are constantly arguing or screaming arguments back and forth to one another during the other's speech or cross-examination period, their credibility will be severely undermined. Likewise, if one is arrogant or overly aggressive to his opponents during the round, he will be seen as insecure, and again, his effectiveness will be diminished.

Liberal judges believe style to be unimportant and irrelevant to the activity. They feel that it is the arguments and evidence that are meaningful and that speaking skills should be emphasized only in the individual events. Debaters would be wise to concentrate solely on refutation and quality and quantity of evidence read. Delivery can be fast within the bounds of comprehensibility. Actually some liberal judges will allow a slightly incoherent reading of the evidence since they feel that they should examine closely the evidence critical to their decision after the round.

The moderate judges combine aspects of both of these philosophies. They base their decisions on the issues argued as opposed to the style of presentation. They do, however, evaluate the issues based upon the emphasis debaters placed upon them. The mannerisms of a team are reflected in the speaker points awarded. While they will allow rapid delivery, it must be comprehensible and coherent since only evidence directly challenged will be examined following the debate. Debaters should combine effective speaking skills with well-developed arguments for these judges. Spending two minutes of the second negative rebuttal on a disadvantage, stressing the value of this argument, will insure that the judge will carefully and extensively consider the issue.

It should be noted that these descriptions are far from being universal. Indeed, few judges would perfectly fit any of the stereotypes. Different judges will reflect different aspects of each classification, and often their philosophies will change over the course of a season. It is critical, therefore, for debaters to be able to ascertain the individual views of the judges they will most frequently encounter.

The most effective way to determine the philosophy of a judge is to discuss the issue directly with him. Many debaters feel awkward speaking with a judge after a round or at other times during the course of a tournament. This fear is completely unwarranted. After all, the whole activity is an academic learning experience. very few judges are unwilling to provide information to debaters which would improve their presentation, at least in the eyes of that judge. what many judges do object to is being badgered until they reveal a decision, or having a debater quarrel with them over a decision. such an approach is futile and counter-productive. Arguing with a judge only alienates him and does not help the debater deal with that judge in the future. To ask a judge for helpful hints, however, not only enables a debater to determine the judge's biases, but also indicates a desire to learn and improve one's debating. Nothing could more impress a judge.

Conversation with one's coach or the judge's debaters is also quite helpful. Most coaches discuss their biases frequently with their debaters; hence, speaking to a judge's debaters can reveal a great deal about his philosophies. one's own coach, especially if he is an experienced coach, should know the beliefs and theories of most of the judges in the area. Debaters should consult with their coach about their upcoming judge before each round observation of the judge during the round is quite valuable. Debaters should always face the judge during the round. The evidence should be set up accordingly. Many judges provide a great deal of feedback. Obviously a judge's expressions and gestures indicate a great deal. If the judge hurls down his pen, wrinkles his face, and shakes his head wildly when the first negative begins to read the Malthus disadvantage, this might be viewed as a hint to finish reading the argument, to continue with another, and to drop the position in rebuttals. In addition, the extent of the judge's flowing can be quite helpful. If the first affirmative constructive contains fifty quotes and is read to accomodate an eight-minute time limit, yet the judge is flowing on only one page, this might indicate a conservative style judge. If the judge's pen moves with every quote and transition, this would indicate a liberal judge. Many a round has been decided by one team's close observance of the Judge.

Several rules of thumb provide a base which debaters can use to evaluate a judge. These rules are by no means always applicable but are correct more often than not. Younger judges will tend to be more liberal, with respect to both argument and style, whereas older judges will be more conservative on both counts. This is because speed and unusual arguments are recent innovations; debate of the past emphasized Persuasion and the stock issues. Another derivative of this principle is the notion that college debaters are more liberal in both respects than high school coaches.

Geographic location can also be important. Judges in the East tend to be more liberal, especially in Illinois. Louisiana and Mississippi tend to be conservative whereas the remainder of the Southeast is somewhat liberal. Texas and the Southwest are conservatively oriented. The West Coast and Midwest are extremely conservative, with the exception of Iowa which tends to be liberal. National tournaments are usually more liberal, with the exception of the Barkley Forum, Bicentennials, and N.F.L. Nationals.

In short, if a team, through personal observations, conversations, and contact with different judges is able to effectively determine the philosophies of most, or a large part, of the judges in their area, they will gain a tremendous advantage which could enable them to defeat even the more advanced teams they meet.

Some have argued that this approach to debate is immoral. They contend that a victory obtained through judge adaptation is "cheap" and a "Cop-out." Nothing could be further from the truth. These individuals argue that evidence and briefs are what should determine wins and losses. But are such alone the only true indication of superior debate skills? Certainly not, especially in high school debate. So much of the evidence a team has are the product of handbooks, workshops, and college debater's briefbooks. Many schools have far greater access to extensive research facilities, far more team members to research, and are far closer to college debate rooms than are others. Does that make the debaters of that team more talented? Evidence and prepared arguments are certainly important, but they are not the only components of successful debating. This is not just the case with academic debate, but is true in all areas of public advocacy. Lawyers do not win cases merely based on the quantity of their evidence, but based on their persuasive techniques as well. Politicians do not win elections only because they have valuable policies prepared, but also due to their charismatic appeal. Throughout one's life, he will be required to effectively convey a message or idea. If he is unwilling to present that idea in a manner conducive to the audience's wishes, he will continually fail miserably. If he is willing to adapt, he will effectively persuade and convince others of the truth of his message. His success will be measured in dollars earned, occupations obtained, and trophies awarded.

ERIK WALKER qualified three times for elimination rounds at the National Debate Tournament as a debater for Samford University.