Neotraditionalism: A Paradigm for Adjudicating Rounds
Matt Johnston, who debated for Lexington until his graduation in 2003, has written a sixteen-point explanation of his judging paradigm - which he labels “neotraditionalist” - and is urging others to adopt this paradigm as well. “Neotraditionalism is a debate philosophy I feel a lot of people have on the tips of their tongues, he explains. “I wish to articulate it.”
Are you a neotraditionalist? Do you object to this type of judging paradigm? What is your preferred judging paradigm? Let us know by reading and commenting! Remember, judging paradigms and philosophies are not simply a convention of “the national circuit”: let’s hear all voices, from all circuits and communities. That’s what real discourse is all about.
Neotraditionalism is a debate philosophy I feel a lot of people have on the tips of their tongues. I wish to articulate it. There has been a lot of very vocal backlash of late toward decisions that seem to be based on absolutist rejections of new approaches to LD. Neotraditionalism responds to this backlash by admitting that, yes, some judges are unfairly rejecting positions and styles simply because they are unusual, and, yes, that is an unfair way to adjudicate a round. However, just as it denies competitive equity to reject a position for being unusual, it is also unfair to reject a traditional approach simply for being traditional.
I ask only that you read carefully before agreeing or disagreeing. I suspect that a great many ‘nontraditional’ judges will actually agree with most or all of this. I have selected words carefully, so please don’t assume broader assertions that often accompany these ideas unless those broader assertions are actually articulated here.
Finally, please consider declaring yourself a Neotraditionalist. There is great value in a variety of judging paradigms in the debate world. I do not think someone is a bad judge for disagreeing with a lot of the tenets below. I do, however, fear that too many judges are being bullied into rejecting some of their ‘traditional’ ideas simply because they are not trendy.
(1) Arguments must be made orally. Cards and cases should not be called after the round simply to give debaters the equivalent of extra time by having a set of meanings that were clear in the round and a second set of meanings derived from a post-round examination of written argumentation. Cards and cases should be called when their content is discussed in the round and the judge wants to ensure that the original source is in line with what it was later represented as.
(2) Speaking very quickly is not an important skill. If a debater is going to spread, s/he should certainly, as a bare minimum, be adding to the round rather than blipping. S/he should certainly be an unusually clear speaker who does not stumble or slur. But the more talented debaters are those who can get through a lot of material without spreading, because this is a skill that is valuable outside of the constructed world of debate. Speaker points should be used to penalize debaters who attempt to spread but make a mess of the thing. This concept is not unique to speed; debaters who make a mess of speaking should generally be docked. Speaking style should not affect decisions, except on the level that judges won’t know to vote for incomprehensible debaters because they will not understand what is being said.
(3) No new arguments can be made in the 2N or the 2AR. No existing arguments can be given new warrants or impacts in the 2N or the 2AR. When an argument is dropped, a debater can recover by outweighing with arguments from elsewhere on the flow or demonstrating that the dropped argument was on the flow several times and that s/he responded in at least one place. It is UNETHICAL to intentionally bring up new arguments in the 2N or the 2AR. If a judge feels the new material was introduced, s/he should IGNORE the argument. When an experienced debater who knows better is sliming, judges should consider docking speaks or, in extreme cases, dropping that debater on face.
(4) In fact, all types of unethical behavior are unacceptable. Judges should seriously consider penalizing debaters for falsifying evidence, misrepresenting what took place in CX, or otherwise intentionally cheating in order to gain advantage in the round.
(5) Arguments need not be conventional or stock. Original arguments are always welcome. Arguments that operate outside traditional standards, such as kritiks, narratives, and out-of-round implications are also welcome. However, these arguments are not held to some lower standard or automatically given preference to conventional material. Debaters running such arguments should still be explaining, warranting, impacting, and, most importantly, responding to attacks made by the other debater. Other debaters do not gain any ground by responding that something “doesn’t belong in LD,” but they do gain ground by demonstrating that something is outweighed, unresolutional, or false. Arguments that can be argued are preferred. If the only reasonable responses to an argument regard whether or not it belongs in a round, the argument is not going to make for a good debate. Ironically, many cases that seek to diversify the arguments made in LD actually reduce the number drastically. Everyone runs about the same five responses to every narrative–and they all deal with getting it ejected from the round.
(6) However, judges should not base decisions on how much they like arguments or how true they think they are. If a debater claims something that the judge feels is false, it is still true for the purposes of the round until the other debater proves it false.
(7) Debate is distinct from oratory in that the two participants must engage one another. Debaters often attempt to win by hiding their arguments from rebuttal and then pulling them across as drops. They use strategies including mislabeling arguments as conclusions, putting out a large number of unrelated points on an opponent’s arguments in order to give the appearance of rebuttal when really they have just run a 7 minute case, and otherwise organizing rounds illogically in the hopes that opponents will, out of confusion, miss something. Other debaters use ’sticky note’ style, putting out the same generalized blocks no matter the nuance of a given argument. These methods are antithetical to debate, which is, by definition, an activity that requires at least two people. It is still the opponent’s burden to explain why such arguments should be thrown out, but judges should be open to such suggestions when it is clear that an argument’s only purpose on the flow is to evade debate and turn LD back into dueling oratory.
(8) Drops aren’t special. A drop is an argument that has been conceded. It is not automatically on-face. A certain number of called drops does not guarantee that there will not be outweighing issues. Called drops still need to weighed into the context of the round. Further, they need to be reexplained to some extent. Saying, “pull the Smith card, the three impacts, and the entire second contention,” puts these things back on the flow, but it doesn’t give them any weight in the round without an explanation of why they matter.
(9) Calling something ‘on-face’ does not make it on-face automatically. If something is truly an on-face reason to vote, it will probably take more than a few seconds to explain why it outweighes EVERYTHING else on the flow.
(10) Clarity is wonderful. One example of it, crystalization, is a valuable organizational tool. Crystalization points do not automatically become on-face. They do not automatically outweigh other points in 2N and 2AR. They are not merely collections of three random arguments. They are reorganizations of the material in the round into a few coherent points which are derived from pieces from all over the flow. Signposting is also preferred. Using correct terminology is preferred. Generally, anything that makes the round easier to flow and weigh is preferred.
(11) Debate is a fun activity. Speaker points should be docked for behavior that makes the activity unfun: turning a discussion of issues into a personal attack, being rude or offensive, etc. In extreme, extreme cases, such debaters simply will not get the message until they drop ballots, and thus, they should drop ballots.
(12) Judges have a great many reciprocal obligations. They MUST flow. They MUST be attentive throughout the round, even during CX.
(13) Judges must be open to questions at the beginning of the round. It is acceptable for a judge to have a certain number of quirks so long as there is full disclosure. If, for example, a judge has a real problem with policy-jargon, this judge has an obligation to mention this before the round even if neither debater asks about it.
(14) Judges must be prepared to justify their decisions and, in a more general sense, their speaker points. This should be done on the ballot and in the oral critique, if allowed. Judges should field questions from debaters about the decision, why some things didn’t come into play, etc. Debaters should not seek to make the judge feel awkward about a decision. No purpose is served by challenging a decision. Ballots should be signed before the critique. Otherwise, there is too much potential for a 3N and 3AR in every round. However, on the rare, rare occasion that a legitimate judge realizes that his/her decision was incorrect, that judge should just admit that and redouble efforts to get future decisions right. Nobody is perfect. Nobody gains from heated disputes after ballots have been turned in. Everyone benefits from calm discussions of a round in which the debaters are open to they possibility that they may have made some mistakes and judges are open to questions and concerns.
(15) Judges should be polite in critiques. Most debates contain positive attributes. Judges should point them out along with the negative ones. Debate is an educational activity: some degree of encouragement is necessary to make it feel worthwhile.
(16) Judges should not make a habit of using the critique as a time to relive life as a debater. It is not a time to reenact the flow with one’s own responses. It is a time to mention how a few arguments might have worked better, how issues played out, and why the decision ultimately went one way or the other.
Popularity: 1%
test
Posted from: 69.161.52.111
February 23rd, 2005 14:36
I actually agree with most of the points that Matt brings up. I think it’s a well-written article that should at least be considered before judging.
By the way, there are two ‘12)’s.
Posted from: 136.242.122.94
February 23rd, 2005 14:40
I will reject the notion that I have to flow until the day I die. If a round is obviously one-sided after the NC, there isn’t really a need to flow. Moreover, if the round doesn’t require a technical analysis of line-by-line arguments, the flow is a pretty worthless tool. Otherwise agreed, but I think that in terms of crystalization, voting issues are absolutely necessary components of a round in which a judge is going to not intervene — voting issues absolutely necessary.
Posted from: 66.189.95.29
February 23rd, 2005 14:40
I like this paradigm. A lot. I think that if every judged judged this way, there’d be a whole lot less complaining about judging over on Westman and in various other places.
I especially like number eight about drops, because I feel like too often judges just use little arrows and vote off of them. I think I must’ve heard, “Extend Jones, it goes dropped, therefore she concedes and I win.” a bazillion times this past weekend. While extensions are nice, it’s just ink unless there’s a little “I” under the ink explaining the impact, or something like that. I think this is something that’s not often touched upon, and it’s a good thing to shed some light on.
I really like the entire paradigm, though!
Posted from: 146.115.115.110
February 23rd, 2005 14:45
I have to disagree with Ryan’s post. For one thing it is unacceptable in my mind to stop flowing after the NC, before the affirmative can defend their arguments. More importantly, if a judge is to engage in productive discourse with the debaters, they should probably flow the whole round, in order to increase their ability to do so.
Posted from: 71.32.161.161
February 23rd, 2005 15:04
Overall I really like this paradigm and would say it mirrors many of the “traditional” judges I enjoy having the back of the room. I would however, disagree a bit with the 7th point criticizing the ‘post-it’ spread. I would argue that though many debaters tend to make nonresponsive arguments while using the ‘post-it’ spread, a good debater will have blocks written to specific warrants or even specific cards. I couldn’t tell if Matt’s intent was to criticize the style itself or simply the use of nonresponsive arguments. I would point out that no matter what the style of the response, the obligation falls upon the other debater to 1. respond in some form as they are arguments on the flow. The responsiveness of an argument doesn’t change its merit as a true statement and 2. point out if those arguments are nonresponsive.
Posted from: 65.35.148.56
February 23rd, 2005 15:07
I can easily see this being my paradigm if I ever judge.
Posted from: 67.107.24.62
February 23rd, 2005 15:13
In RE: to #1, I think that it is okay to call cards if there is a dispute over the evidence. I do agree, however, that judges should not call cards because they did not understand the first time (unless it was THEIR fault, i.e. they were text messaging at the time).
In RE: to #7, I don’t think that you can draw a line between what is strategic and what is “deliberate confusion.” I think we would all agree that it is harmless to put your best argument at the bottom because it is the most likely to get dropped, but is it okay to put a one-sentence spike at the end of it? What if it is clearly labeled? I think that if judges start rejecting arguments that they think are “unfair,” it will lead to way to many decisions that have nothing to do with what the DEBATERS did. I think that if there is a problem with arguments the other debater needs to run theory.
In RE: to #11, I think that speaker points are the judge’s domain, but not the ballot itself. Dropping a debater for doing something you find offensive but that debater, or maybe neither of the debaters, find offensive seems a bit unfair. Once again, let the debaters run theory, I’ve seen it done.
In regard to the rest of the post, I really do not understand why this is “neoconservative.” It is certainly not anything new, and it doesn’t seem to be very conservative. Really, it seems to be a response to a type of judge that I have never personally met. I am sure that some people have an image of some of the younger, self-proclaimed “progressive” judges as always voting for critiques and pulling the trigger on random arguments labled as “a priori”, but I am rather certain that 95% of us do not do so because we think it is cool or because we think that ‘traditional’ cases are bad.
I think that the reason you see some many Ks winning and so much gamesmanship being successful is that debaters have not yet adapted to it. Most LDers in the country still do not know how to respond to a critique, and most can still be spread out of the round. I do not think that changing a paradigm is the answer - teaching our debaters how to win rounds is.
Posted from: 67.107.24.62
February 23rd, 2005 15:14
Oops, I mean neotraditionalist, not neoconservative. :)
Posted from: 64.12.116.203
February 23rd, 2005 15:16
I guess I don’t see much of a distinction between this paradigm and that of the typical ‘progressive’ judge outside the first point.
Posted from: 128.252.43.72
February 23rd, 2005 15:17
I think his 16 points are incredible and even if I don’t always follow them (i.e. flowing) I agree that it is probably the ideal way to adjudicate a round I’d like to add a 17th.
17. In such a subjective activity we pride ourselves on the objectivity of our critics, in that they evaluate arguments not people. I believe currently we are seeing an influx of younger judges who are judging 8-10 big tournaments a year. This is incredible that younger people are committing so much time to the activity and not forgetting about the activity that gave them so many oppurtunties in high school.
Inevitably though, when people spend so much time with debaters who are either a few years younger than them or practically the same age friendships and bonds are established. These are in no way on face bad or evil. The problem becomes when you sit down and start judging rounds with people you are friends with when the stakes are very high. People say they can be objective even if they are judging their friends. THEY CAN’T, and even if they can be objective it gives the opponent a weird feeling because regardless of the round they will never know for sure if they lost on the arguments or on the fact someone didn’t want their friend upset with them at dinner. This weekend at Harvard I was disgusted to see certain judges come up to students and explain to them why “I am a good judge for you” or “I’d vote for you in 99% of rounds”. If you seek the approval of certain debaters or are friends with them and want to be part of the cool group there is absolutely no shame in telling the tab room when you are assigned a particular round that you are unable to evaluate that round objectively. Trust me everyone will be better off because of it.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
February 23rd, 2005 15:24
this may suprise people, but i would/will most likely adopt a paradigm a lot like this when judging, with three exceptions:
in order of how strongly i disagree…
1 - i love strategic debate. point #7 makes strategic placing of arguments sound like a dirty trick; i think its just another intellectual dimension to the round. the critical thinking (mostly on a psychological level) that it takes to plan a good strategy is, in fact, useful in life.
2 - i disagree with the statement “Other debaters […] gain ground by demonstrating that something is outweighed, _unresolutional_, or false.” i think that there can be legitimate reasons that arguments dont have to be topical (e.g. discourse ks, schlag, whatever).
3 - i may or may not disagree with the first point - im not sure what exactly it means. judges dont keep perfect flows, so as long is it can be proven that something was ACTUALLY read, i dont think it should count against a debater that a judge didnt happen to flow it completely or accurately. i belive that judges shouldn’t extrapolate arguments for debaters, but i’m not sure if thats what the first point is saying or not.
sortof unrelated: im not sure that the speaker point paradigm really makes anything more clear, given that what makes a round ‘not fun’ is really subjective. for babb, watching me read 8 pages in 7 minutes might be pretty sweet (it got me a 30 at glenbrooks); the round before, in front of jason woehler, it probably would NOT have fit his definition of fun. **Im not saying that either of these judges has a more legitimate paradigm than the other** - i’m just pointing out that whats ‘fun’ isnt really a meaningful standard.
Posted from: 69.86.101.29
February 23rd, 2005 15:30
The paradigm is a really well stated list of things that I agree with. I especially appreciate the attempt to carve out a natural position for critical arguments. Although it seems to be occurring less and less, there is still a lot of polarization on the issue: even assuming that a judge is not biased against some arguments because they are “policy”, bad habits seen when these arguments are run can nonetheless bias some judges against unusual argumentation. Over-compensation for such bias can lead to unconscious intervention as well. It seems like a good idea to take the issue out of the “purpose of debate” sphere, to take away the dichotomies between different types of arguments, and to look to the way they impact the round, as a way of evaluating the round. Typically, the “big picture” is a comfortable way of voting; allowing critical arguments to leave stylistic preconceptions behind is always a good idea.
I don’t think the term “neotraditionalism” quite describes the paradigm, however. On the contrary, it seems to reject “appeal to tradition”, which is what traditionalism typically identifies as, in favor of a rational paradigm of evaluating arguments. Furthermore, it rejects some negative traditions that may be forming in response to “traditionalism”; the strength of this paradigm is that it appeals very little to “purposes”. It doesn’t matter as much that it happens to agree in some ways with traditional conceptions of debate; the most progressive judges still agree that the “debater who debates better wins”. By removing value-laden labels, reasonable approaches to debate may prove more unifying; they decrease conflicts of interest and petty grudges.
Unfortunately, it seems that implementing such a paradigm among a majority of non-flow or apathetic judges is as difficult as it ever was. As discussed on Westman, much isn’t just up to the judge, it’s up to the tournament as well, to give the judges the opportunity (and in some cases instruction) to do their best.
Posted from: 65.40.80.134
February 23rd, 2005 15:31
Ok, I’ll join the wagon, I honestly believe this paradigm is amazing.
I completely agree with Aram. Flowing is a must, as the affirmative needs to be able to defend arguments, but still to pose responses on the negative. I think writing the NC off as amazing and leaving it at that is what sets up a lot of intervention and “bad decisions”. Further, I think the flow is ONLY a worthless tool if the judge him/herself is not flowing. I seem to be getting less and less flow judges lately, and thats helped me adapt a more broader, big picture approach, but I still believe that the flow is an integral part of piecing that together as well.
I especially agree and would echo point number 13. I had an opponent who asked my judge at Harvard if he was ok with critical arguments, to which the judge replied, if they are easily understandable, and not to “weird”. It was at this point my opponent ran a very critical case, and all the while I saw my judge shaking his head in frustration, because it wasn’t easily understandable, but that argument, becoming the basis for the advocacy, muddled the entire case, and round. This also brings me to point 14, where judges have to justify the decision. In the oral critique, the judge told the debater that his critical argument wasn’t elaborated enough, and that it muddled the round. The result was a rather contentious argument, which completely ended the oral critique. I believe that if debate is truly a learning activity, debaters need to get over themselves, accept a decision, and not make the same mistake twice.
I’d also like to add: having a card does not necessarily (many times it doesn’t) mean you have a warrant. Just because Robert Audi says that church / state integration is bad doesn’t mean you’re automatically right, you still have to prove why Mr. Audi’s comments are true. If the card has an inherent warrant in it, that’s great, but it seems to be a growing trend to card things for the sake of carding, rather than for warrants.
Posted from: 169.231.29.251
February 23rd, 2005 15:32
I agree with the conclusion the paradigm draws about debate for the most part. However, I think it is based on an underlying assumption about debate that I find somewhat problematic. That is, the article seems to imply that debate is a communicative/educational activity and ought to be preserved as such.
The most obvious examples are the approach to speed (2) and so-called strategery (7). These both are premised on the idea that debaters are somehow obligated to make life easy on each other, at bare minimum to the extent that they should not hide arguments and, in the logical extension, should not run arguments or interpretations that specifically skew ground.
Given that the educational character of this activity is derived from its competitive aspects, I think any limitation on that competitive drive is detrimental to the activity. In more succinct terms, while I agree with the majority of the article, I think debate is fundamentally a game.
Theoretical arguments that contest the fairness or educational value of an approach are legitimate, there ought not be some predetermined characteristic that fairness or education matters.
I think fabien puts it best when he says that “I have no obligation to provide you ground.” While this may seem absurd, ‘abusive’ or ‘unfair’ strategies are sometimes necessary to counteract some other advantage. For example, aff’s hiding a priori arguments in their case is a mechanism for fighting back the negative spread.
While it might be useful to extend this ish to a more in depth refutation of the article, I don’t think that is really necessary.
Posted from: 128.252.43.72
February 23rd, 2005 15:40
I think fabien puts it best when he says that “I have no obligation to provide you ground.”Navot
Proving the need for Rule #17
Posted from: 67.169.200.141
February 23rd, 2005 15:44
Why is this necessarily a “paradigm.” While I agree with most of the points . . . it seems like a conglomeration of things this “Matt” person feels are essential to debate. What’s the glue that holds them together as a paradigm? Why is this “neotraditionalist?” Supposing there WAS a paradigm that glued these arguments together into one advocacy, why is this so much better than “non-neotraditionalist” adjudications.
Finally: What’s blipping? Like, as in, brightlines. How short of an argument have to be to allow for intervention?
Posted from: 169.231.29.251
February 23rd, 2005 15:49
Maybe I am dense, but what does Fabien saying a theoretical view in round have to do with judge biases?
Posted from: 128.95.18.75
February 23rd, 2005 16:13
I also have problems with point 7. Hiding arguments and block-refuting are legitimate debate techniques. Legitimate clash is obviously preferable, but if you don’t have a good response and your opponent isn’t sharp enough to see through your distraction until it is too late, then you should win.
I would add my own 17th point: that judges should decide flight A before they watch flight B. One of my kids had a judge who didn’t flow for his flight A round. The judge said he would disclose after both flights had completed. At the end of flight B my kid went back in to ask if he’d won and the judge said that he couldn’t remember the round and he’d have to think about it before he made his desicion. I think that is absurd.
Posted from: 66.27.188.11
February 23rd, 2005 16:13
I love it, especially 2, 8, and 9. I think 2 and 8 work really well together when one evaluates how to deal with the spread; if I’m not going to run an anti-spreading K in the 1AR or try and cover everything, then I think I should be expected to drop the less important arguments, let them be extended, and outweigh in the 2. This paradigm brings to light the fact that too much emphasis is, occasionally, put on voters that are ‘clearly dropped and extended’ or ‘on-face wins’.
Which puts an interesting spin on this abuse discussion. While I may concede that debate is a game, (although I think that’s not giving LD enough credit) individuals who are truly good at the game shouldn’t have to unfairly skew ground, mask their arguments, or hide behind a spread. I think there’s something powerful about showing off exactly what you’ve got, letting them give the best rebuttal they can, and still winning. Good debaters may sometimes spread, but they’re not good until they can win without the spread.
In my humble opinion.
-Eliz
Posted from: 128.42.166.228
February 23rd, 2005 17:11
In general, I think this is all very reasonable. I have one thing to add regarding point #11: While rudeness/undue intensity should be discouraged on the part of competitors because this is supposed to be fun in some way, I also think that a lot of judges forget how they have a unique relationship with those they evaluate, and they set the tone for the activity in a big way. Kids are giving up their weekends to do this, and we are getting paid (a lot of the time) or at least getting free food to sit on our butts. I have had several judges (on the CEDA/NDT circuit) who took cigarette breaks during cross-x and prep time, who gave malicious oral critiques, and who had a general air of lethargy and ill will. I guess for me rule #17 is just don’t be a dick. Appreciate that these people, no matter how much you may hate what’s going down in that round, are working hard and continuing the activity.
Cheers!
Posted from: 128.135.192.184
February 23rd, 2005 17:23
I’d really like if Matt Johnston would differentiate a little bit more between this “neoconservative” paradigm and the “progressive”(?) one. I have trouble seeing what makes this paradigm so different than the ones that most regular and generally well-liked circuit judges use to adjudicate rounds. I think the arguments being made in this new paradigm run the danger of becoming “strawmen” without at least a little bit more explanation of its differences with the paradigm you are dead set against. Maybe these differences are there, but they aren’t very clear to me.
On another note, if you’d like to discuss this more with me I’d be happy too. I believe we both go to school together and it seems as if we both judge often enough at circuit tournaments to have an interesting discussion about what we like or don’t like. My email is lsolomon (at) uchicago [dot] edu.
Posted from: 128.135.192.184
February 23rd, 2005 17:38
meh, I meant “neotraditional”
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
February 23rd, 2005 17:45
i like it, with the exception of 7 because i’m all for strategery and stuff.
one thing i’d add (and that i think is actually a lot more “traditional” than the 17 points presented so far) is that judges shouldn’t vote on arguments that aren’t warranted and don’t contain a relatively complete link story. debate is fundamentally about comparing arguments, which by definition contain a claim, warrant, and impact. the idea that extended claim/impact combinations should be treated as true is a complete nonsequitur; warrants don’t magically appear from the sky just because a debater drops a sentence that someone calls a response, so we shouldn’t pretend that they do. this doesn’t mean judges should intervene on the content of arguments at all; my point is just that the structure of an argument prevents blips from being evaluated in such a way that proves the truth or falsity of a resolution.
Posted from: 207.172.84.59
February 23rd, 2005 17:49
Alex-
So basically you’re saying “Don’t evaluate shitspreads?” If so, I agree.
Posted from: 68.237.198.121
February 23rd, 2005 17:55
i agree with the general sentiment of alex’s post — that ‘blips’ or arguments missing warrants/other necessary elements are pointless in argumentation and so allowing debaters to extend them and derive impacts from them is problematic; the problem, though, is that when i’ve evaluating a round, i have no clear way to know when an argument’s ‘link story’ is complete unless the other debater calls the argument out…
one-phrase assertions are easy to point out as unwarranted, but i’ve witnessed rounds when there’s been great disagreement about whether or not an argument is properly warranted
so, judges deciding whether or not an argument is complete or not without reasons why it isn’t on the flow is problematic, too; as is of course, a debater having to deal with a shit spread by identifying each unwarranted argument and explaining why it isn’t an argument to the judge…
Posted from: 24.160.107.81
February 23rd, 2005 18:05
I completely agree with Sam Duby’s point 17 about judges striking themselves from competitors they can not judge objectively. This becomes a problem late in outrounds, when judges become scarce, and the competitors are particularly well known and liked. I’ve observed rounds where I felt like the judge signed the ballot simply from seeing the competitor names and preceeded to ignore the next 45 minutes of debate.
Posted from: 138.88.2.130
February 23rd, 2005 18:26
I really like the paradigm. That said, I think Alex is right in pointing out some guidelines for what constitutes “proof” of an argument are worthwile
The other thing I’d mention is that there are situations where I believe intervention to be warranted - to decide allegations of academic abuse or to protect the rest of the field (ex. 30 speakerpoint underviews, double wins), amongst other things
Posted from: 130.132.16.161
February 23rd, 2005 18:59
I definitely agre with most of the paradigm and I’ve used most of it in my own decisions, but a few poitns I think deserve emphasis:
1. Oral critiques. There’s a lot of discussion about the duties of judges, but on the circuit there seems to be little or no cognizance of the duties of debaters. It is no exaggeration to say that this year I’ve had well known debaters literally yell, throw tandrums, etc., and even well known coaches chalk such behavior up to “well they are just upset” or “you were the squirrel, you made a bad decision” and almost never consider
that debaters themselves may have screwed up a round they “should” have won. More important,
there is a big culture in circuit elim rounds I’ve seen where people take the attitude that judges have to justify themselves, as if the critique is a cross-examination (i.e. “read back your flow to me” or one debater at lexington: “there is no way you could have made a legitimate decision…blah blah…”)
Just the basic courtesy of letting a judge finish an RFD without seeing a debater roll their eyes, get pissy or interrupt me while talking is a rarity that makes me wonder if non-disclosure would save me time I could spend say, doing homework, or takling to debaters who appreciate the advice. My point is, whereas the paradigm says
that judges have obligations, it is NECESSARY
that we think that DEBATERS have duties to be civil, polite, respectful, and most of all humble enough to realize that if they lose a round in front of a very flow oriented judge that we in the circuit don’t say:
1. the judge is “illegit” because solely because they were on the bottom with no regard to the actual content of the round (this happens ALL THE TIME–I’ve had many coaches I respect whine about me being a “squirrel judge”, maybe repping out is better and more acceptable?)
2. the judge is a bad judge just because they drop
a good debater to a “random” (Perhaps we shouldn’t be so elitist as to assume that “good debaters” shoudl be given ballots by default)
3. that there is an obligation for a judge just to vote for people who are “expected” to win
and INSTEAD we should:
4. that we should condemn and disagree with debaters who behave in immature and sometimes verbally violent ways when they lose rounds
It is not enough to say that these actions aren’t already accepted. I’ve seen plenty of well named coaches and debaters excuse such behavior (even to my face), and it’s happened maybe like 15-20% of
rounds that I judge. (it happened at emory, lexington….glenbrooks last year…I needn’t continue with examples, I have a paper to write)
You have to give respect to get it back, and it seems that it’s in vogue on the circuit not to
consider that judges deserve some level of respect and civil treatment if they make a “bad decision” or if a popular debater is upset they lost to a “random”: then all restraints of sportsmanship and civility become ignored. I know from my end,
I shall have no more patience for such behavior..
II. Debate clarity
In addition, I completely agree with the problems of people saying new arguments (in fact, no one
has been stupid enough to pull this: I give an automatic 0, and sometimes loss when people start sliming); as well as the use by many circuit debaters to be deliberately nontransparent to the point of absolute incoherence.
IE
1. horrid/nonexistent internal structure of arguments, making it impossible to even know
what the argument is saying even if you know the theory
2. 400-600 word cards of incoherent babble that I wouldn’t be able to read in my phd classes as a “card” to use in a paper…much less a presentation
3. little or no attempt to clearly spell out thesis statements to arguments that are “critical”
4. atrocious delivery: no voice variation to emphasize words, arguments or even the distinction between analytics or cards
It’s not simply that critique debaters beat people who arent’ prepared enough to answer, it’s that many of the people I’ve seen run nontraditional arguments do it in a way to “deliberately confuse” and convolute a round to preclude well informed debaters from identify what to argue. Some rounds (with people with a ton of bids) are so awful and difficult to decipher that my pen will catch words here and there, but there is no attempt at WEIGHING,
telling a STORY …and when you drop one of such critical debaters, you get whining about “anti-intellectualism” or that you made “a hella illegit decision” and little or no cognizance that they were incompetent/made mistakes in round that costed them the ballot.
It’s not enough to say that judges should be open to all points of view and discourse–it’s too popular to ignore debater’s duty to make their arguments understandable so that others can know what they are talking about. Very often many critical debaters rant about discourse theory, and can’t even in CX give noncircular, direct to teh point answers about what their position means.
That all said, I appalud the effort to define a “neotraditionalist” paradigm, regardless of whether or not the label is a perfect one. I’ve seen too much judge abuse, debater cattiness,
and most of all, argumentative gibberish to be content with silence. This is not to say that
critical arguments are bad (hell, I write many critiques myself), but we need to accept that debaters have obligations to be coherent/written in decent english, a low standard that it seems very few people are publicly willing to impose
upon “progressive” arguments nowadays.
Posted from: 4.33.111.241
February 23rd, 2005 19:02
That has to be one of the best paradigms ever. In response:
I think number six is something that some judges seriously need to read and consider. I for one have had a juge intervene and tell me they didn’t vote off something because they personally didn’t believe it. That said, I also agree with what Duby said about “point 17″. The same judge described before had previously been biased against myself and my team, and there’s nothing more frusturating than having a judge like that, especially as someone relatively new to debate. It really skews our views of how judges should vote-based on the quality of the round and not on personal biases or opinions.
Posted from: 64.12.116.203
February 23rd, 2005 19:15
On #7…
Obviously placing arguments strategically is a generally accepted, and probably good strategy in debate. But I also think there’s a limit to what you can do, as the author seems to note. For example, Edina’s policy team at national qualifiers lost a controversial round when a team, in the middle of their counterplan (which is not a usual place to hide a topicality violation) had the sentence “this counterplan isn’t topical and neither is the AC”. They then extended it and won the round when our team missed it. I think hiding arguments, espeically blatantly unwarranted ones, should be excluded from debate. Especially in a fast round, when it’s impossible to catch absolutely every word, I agree that judges should disregard this sort of argument.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
February 23rd, 2005 19:59
liz is just excited to get to tell the CP story, ive heard it like 14 times now.
Posted from: 67.169.200.141
February 23rd, 2005 21:30
but why is it a paradigm? Like the author seems to advocate a Marxian paradigm shift, with the thesis, traditionalist judging, the antithesis uber tabula rasa judging, and the synthesis “neotraditionalism.”
Sorry if I fail to see why this should be a system of beliefs. What’s the axiom they turn on . . . ?
Posted from: 160.39.226.192
February 23rd, 2005 22:27
Why is there almost always universal acceptance of these occasional proposals for the reconsideration of LD? Whenever Baldwin or Bietz issue these treatises, everybody jumps on the reformist wagon (as Bietz pointed out). Is there really anything radical or conservative in this paradigm? Is there anything objectionable on face? If we removed the “Neotraditionalist” label and presented it to a spectrum of judges, they’d probably find this paradigm agreeable, even if they range on the spectrum from tradtional (actually traditional) to radical tab. Despite that agreement, they’re probably going to evaulate the same round and same case differently.
What is this paradigm in contrast to? Does the “Progessive Paradigm” actually admit that it buys and picks up kritiks and non-traditional arguments without warrants and just for novelty’s sake? Does the “Traditionalist Paradigm” say it reserves the right to make capricious, arbitrary decisions?
This paradigm really does sound like the Progressive or Tabula Rasa position by any other name. Traditionalists usually claim the right to judge or restrict content, whether the opponent contests it or not. The only allusion to that is point-(9), where Johnston suggests that brief “on face” voters or extensions may not be valid arguments; he doesn’t mention if the judge has the discretion to disregard them or has to wait for the opponent to contest them. Does point-(6) mean that judges must accept conclusions without warrants as true?
Posted from: 68.164.156.59
February 24th, 2005 08:57
I gotta agree with this paradigm regardless of whether it’s called Neotraditional, or just smart judging.
I especially agree with the point about card calling. Too often it seems that judges just call cards so they look cool, something which I never understood. If arguments didn’t make sense the first time they were said judges shouldn’t interpret them after the round.
I will certainly be following this style of judging to help me evaluate the rounds that I judge.
This is really what I expect from judges too, so to see it in actual writing is comforting.
Posted from: 128.12.94.42
February 24th, 2005 09:49
i also agree with this paradigm, especially #10 about crystallization. in many of the rounds i judged at stanford and berkeley, debaters just made miscellaneous extensions in their last speeches and didn’t fully explain their impact in the context of the round (ex. this takes out their first voting issue, this means that we don’t accept their standard, this means that you look to this argument first, etc). crystallization usually makes rounds a lot less muddled and more enjoyable to judge.
however, i think that arguments should be sufficiently explained in the 1nr/1ar and not just blipped and elaborated upon in the last speech. specifically, a lot of debaters just extend card names in their 1ar and draw out the argument and its implications in the 2ar… or put out a badly explained argument in the first rebuttal, then after the opposing debater misunderstands it, makes it very clear in the last rebuttal. at the very least, these arguments should be given less weight in the round than arguments that were consistently well explained in each rebuttal.
Posted from: 128.135.96.138
February 24th, 2005 10:22
And the author responds…
The term ‘Neotraditionalism’ is intentionally ironic. The concept is nothing new at all. Nor is it something that is limited to traditional judges. It draws boundaries that I feel are being crossed quite frequently. It tells people who agree with this paradigm to hold their ground to provide balance in the debate world. You don’t need to be a Neotraditionalist to be a good judge, but you do need to have considered deeply why you are not. Mostly, I’m happy to see this discussion regulate itself. The philosophy is what it is and is not going to change to be more inclusive of strategy or anything else.
One question I have, not as the author, but as a reader of the posts, is this: What is accomplished by putting your best argument at the bottom of the case? Yes, it will be dropped more often. But why debate if you are so ballot-centered that you would prefer to see your oratory win than have an actual discussion with an intelligent high school student? I realize the stakes get pretty high for ballots, but I’m not convinced that education and ballot-winning are always compatible goals. As far as Neotraditionalism goes, it does not oppose this strategy so much as regret it. What (7) is meant to address is debaters whose styles are more extreme than that: putting out 11-point overviews that don’t actually overview anything, consistently using responses that don’t work (the physical stickies themselves are irrelevant), and actively mislabeling arguments with taglines that are intentionally deceptive. I will continue to oppose such methods even if they win ballots. I will continue to ignore such arguments when given a reason to by the other debater.
And, finally, a question for Mr. Duby. I like the spirit of your (17), but I’m not convinced it would improve every tournament. It is quite, quite likely that a judge will personally know at least one debater in every quarterfinal round at a tournament. Further, the judges who don’t know debaters are also likely to be the judges who are out of the loop and not as suited to be judging the late rounds. Is the sacrifice of such judges justified by the increased objectivity your proposal would bring about?
Posted from: 128.252.182.3
February 24th, 2005 11:15
Matt,
First off call me Sam. My grandfather is Mr. Duby.
Second I think there is a difference between knowing certain debaters and seeking the approval of debaters or being overly attached. I’m not 100% where the brightline is I think it starts somewhere around constantly having personal relations with the debaters whether the be in the form of constantly hanging out in the cafeteria or spending hours on AIM with these kids. The line was definitely crossed at Emory a few weeks ago when one of the judges hugged a competitor shortly after she voted for her in a big round. That is utterly unacceptable.
My point though in the majority of cases is not neccesarily that these judges are not objective but rather the impression given off is one that is sketchy. There is no bright line and each judge at the end of the day has to make that decision for themselves in the close call scanarios. I think the tab room should be willing to take away ballots when something is brought to their attention. I’m just hoping that my peers consider not only whether they actually can judge objectively but whether the opponent believes that this is true as well. Because at the end of the day we are judging as employees being paid by the tournament or certain schools or in many cases the actual students. Our purpose is not to feel powerful by judging big rounds but rather by doing what we can to help the tournament have the fairest rounds for the competitors, and sometimes we do that best by holding the timer instead of the ballot.
Posted from: 199.80.150.65
February 24th, 2005 13:31
I agree with almost all of this paradigm. In reference to point #7, I think people are misinterpreting what it meant to say. I don’t think Matt’s paradigm is saying “strategy is unacceptable” (for example, I don’t think anyone would have a real problem with a competitor putting his/her best argument at the bottom of the AC or whatever); I think the paradigm is indicting much more flagrat violations (like blatantly mistagging cards so opponents respond incorrectly and then extending the real argument from the card in the 1AR, or like the policy example Liz cited).
I’d especially like the highlight point #1 (I think that was it, the one about calling cards). I think calling for cards after a round because the card was read too fast in the AC/NC or whatever is really unfair because it gives the judge an infinite amount of time to read/understand something when the other competitor was confined to 3 minutes of prep (and obviously forcing a debater to even use 3 minutes of prep to read one card is ridiculous). If a card wasn’t clear the first time around, I don’t think it’s fair to spend extra time after the round interpreting it. We wouldn’t allow a debater to restate a response (or re-read blocks) to a judge after a round because it wasn’t clear the first time around; why hold cards to a different standard?
Posted from: 66.15.175.130
February 24th, 2005 13:35
i concur with sam that it is a bad idea to judge people with whom you have super close connection.
on the same token, in the debate community, there are often unavoidable relationships. for instance, many coaches are friends with each other. does that mean that coaches cannot judge the students of their friends? for some coaches this may be possible (i.e. they are not well liked or well known). for others it may be impossible (i.e. they are very well known and highly well liked).
i think that judges should ask themselves some fundamental questions with complete honesty:
1) how likely are you to vote against a friend or the student of your friend in a close debate?
2) how does it look to the larger community when you vote for a friend or the student of your friend in a close debate?
as an aside, when i debated in college, i was friends with many of my judges. the college debate community is weird because so many people are friends with each other. there would be tournaments wherein it’d be *impossible* for 80% of the judge pool to judge if one couldn’t judge their friends. sometimes, as our community becomes more specialized, the more narrow the group becomes.
something to consider.
Posted from: 131.229.177.243
February 24th, 2005 14:25
This is just an overall comment:
I used to try to mentally (if not in the written word) format my paradigm like the one above… until I discovered that saying too much before rounds only tended to confuse kids and slow down the round.
Now, at tourneys, all I say is that I can handle anything that’s thrown at me. I outline my pet peeves, give the kids a general idea of what I want to hear, and then they’ve got the green light to begin.
I don’t know how often you judge, Matt, but I’m going to venture the guess that you’ve never read this paradigm off to the kids you’ve evaluated. If this assumption is correct, I’d further assume that it’s because certain points within it seem to be so intuitive as to be hardly worth stating.
Here’s where I throw my gauntlet down, as a few other people before me have: If you can claim that most people will agree with your points, and the previous responses on this thread show that this holds true even with people from quite diverse backgrounds, is your paradigm saying anything all that special?
(i.e., It’s easy to get everyone to agree on something when there’s nothing to argue about!)
Posted from: 64.12.116.203
February 24th, 2005 15:43
I actually disagree with many of the points in this paradigm. I wrote out a “line by line” response but then my pos 1998 Dell froze and I had to beat it with a Van der Graff generator.
So here is a quick summary
-calling cards is fine. As is calling blocks, or entire cases. Bad debaters complain when a judge votes off a card that was called after the round. Good debaters don’t becuase they already called and read it during prep/CX. If a piece of evidence is important to the RFD, why not evaluate the argument that was for sure read in the round rather than a humanly imperfect flow?
-Speaking quickly is an important skill. Faster speaking = more words = more arguments. Sure, it means that bad debaters can put out tons of blips, but there are people who will be blippy even if it means they take a whole minute to make one terrible argument. Paradigms should focus on the ideal debate round, not the most terrible one, becuase then every judge would just write: “jesus christ you both suck I just hope someone drops something massive so I can circle a name and leave.”
- Debaters running non-stock positions should be rewarded either through higher speaks or through the ballot, if there is no in-round weighing and the RFD comes down to 3 stock voters vs 3 unique ones. New argumentation constantly puhses the activity forward, is more educational for the community as a whole, and makes every round a fun and unique experience for both competitors and judges. Next year, if I’m judging you, go ahead and run the stock args cut straight from the victory briefs, but you won’t have a chance at a 30.
Allowing judges to deermine that a position is unfair or bad for debate because “there are only a certian number of reasonable responses” or it is unresolutional is ridiculous. The number of responses to any argument is infinite, and there is no reason why topical debate is any better than framework debates about what approaches to argumentation are best. Philosophers often undermine the positions of those they criticize by rejecting the entire methodology. LD debate doesn’t need to occur on a specific level or specific ground.
-Everything else (lying=bad, new in the 2’s=bad, judges should flow and give RFDs, debaters should signpost, weigh and crystallize) is fine. The problem here is more on the implementation level: judges don’t recognize what a new argument is. I was told by a judge at harvard that “arguments can’t be new in the 2NR because you as the affirmative still have a chance to respond.” My opponent nodded in agreement. I walked out in disbelief.
So, to construct a new paradigm that is raw and concise (ie, excludes the things everyone agrees on):
-go as fast as you want/need to
-please run unique arguments and case structures
-I’ll call cards if I miss them
-please hand your case and blocks read to your opponent after each speech, even if they don’t ask
-don’t suck, don’t try to persuade me, don’t try to look like you’re winning if you’re not. Just beat your opponent.(this one needs repeating)
Posted from: 128.135.192.184
February 24th, 2005 15:48
Petey Gil tells it as it is once again!
Posted from: 128.135.220.105
February 24th, 2005 16:17
‘Celis, I don’t read this before rounds nor do I ever plan to. I had a similar experience of trying to fit too much into my paradigm when I first starting judging, but now I stick to a few basics as well as specific questions. And Neotraditionalism is not, as Petey so aptly demonstrates, something everyone agrees on.
I have great respect for Petey as a debater and think that there is plenty of room for his concept of debate. But I think the debate world is a best served by multiple viewpoints and that too many judges are conforming to one viewpoint in order to feel legitimate and/or trendy. I disagree with Petey (and lots of other people; he just happens to serve as an example for now) and will argue that I am right to the death, but I make a big distinction between being a bad judge (not recognizing slime, voting for friends no matter what, not flowing, etc etc etc) and being a judge I disagree with (supporting certain types of strategy, etc).
Posted from: 68.37.114.142
February 24th, 2005 16:20
Although individually each point of the paradigm seems reasonable, one forseeable problem is how to weigh between them. For example, say that Debater A is extremely clear in voting issues (#10) but acts somewhat unethically through a blip response (#2 and 4). Then, Debater B’s does not violate #2 or 4, but is confusing in voting issues. How ought a judge weight between these, or should they weigh between them at all? At some point, a judge is making a personal preference as to which is more important, and often this can harm the objectivity of judging. Additionally, if the judge knows that one debater often violates one point of the paradigm (for example, always makes blippy responses) then it seems as if the judge would be more inclined to weight this as having a stronger impact to the round. A more concrete paradigm (I like Petey’s) doesn’t require this more subtle form of intervention.
Posted from: 207.172.84.59
February 24th, 2005 16:27
Here’s my question about Petey’s paradigm: if someone is going so fast neither the opposing debater nor the judge understand a word that is coming out of their mouth, do you proceed to call for their case after the round? Do you write the warrant on the flow when they extend it in the next speech? On balance, I think speed is not bad for debate, and is often good. However, it becomes so when the debater is incomperehensible. For different debaters, there are different limitations to how fast they can go. Some can ennunciate while going 200 words per minute, others can’t going 100 words per minute. Yes, debate is about education. It’s also about communication, to an extent. Thus, if I had to write my own paradigm, I would say, “Go as fast as you can so long as I can understand you. And if you suck at going fast, don’t.”
Posted from: 66.93.17.219
February 24th, 2005 16:31
everyone agrees, at least on forums, that they want smarter, less blippy debate. when it comes to what actually wins in rounds, though, debaters REALLY REALLY complain when a judge won’t vote on a blip for them or if a judge says, that position/argument wasn’t developed.
i really wonder if we want judges that think. i think it would be easier if everyone just agreed to count arguments at the end of the round. And, if the judge misses what you say, you can just hand the judge your flow… she can just count your arguments. that way bad judges will still be able to make the *right* decision.
Posted from: 12.216.147.234
February 24th, 2005 16:37
Petey writes,
“Debaters running non-stock positions should be rewarded either through higher speaks or through the ballot, if there is no in-round weighing and the RFD comes down to 3 stock voters vs 3 unique ones. New argumentation constantly puhses the activity forward, is more educational for the community as a whole, and makes every round a fun and unique experience for both competitors and judges. Next year, if I’m judging you, go ahead and run the stock args cut straight from the victory briefs, but you won’t have a chance at a 30.”
Maybe if you make the argument that unique arguments are better, then they should be given more weight. Though I suppose then, some weighing should be done. There is no way to determine which argument is more unique in some situations-further, some stock arguments are just really good. For example, I ran the same Affirmative essentially all the way through the september october topic, yet it seemed to be successful the entire time, because judges found it to be true. I think telling debaters they have to run something more unique in order to win a round is a silly way to decide weighing, and there are better methods (like presumption) that could be used. Also, everyone uses their speaker point paradigm differently and you have every right to do so, but I think if people execute arguments perfectly from victory briefs then there is no reason that should be considered worse than arguments from other authors.
Posted from: 64.12.116.203
February 24th, 2005 17:09
All I’m saying is that in a toss-up situation (ie where a judge basically has to intervene and do alot of work to put together an RFD or just flip a coin) I will always reward the debater who chose to challenge her/himself by running a non-stock position, and who made the round more enjoyable for me (and hopefully the opponent as well) in doing so.
I’m not going to automatically vote for the person who runs a critical AC or T: Aff fails to define US as Disneyland, so this doesn’t really change much.
Ernie: If I had been judging this year, you could have run your “true aff” and probably beat your opponent easily, and gotten a 29 or 28. Or, you could have pulled out some other AC and tried for the 30. It isn’t designed to make people uncomfortable with their style of debate, only to reward them for experimenting.
Posted from: 209.30.71.78
February 24th, 2005 17:10
I think that more unique arguements are inherently good for debate. What leads to non-responsive block fests is most people running the same 3 or 4 arguements every round and while the arguements themselves maybe good I think encouraging unique arguements in debate is good for a couple of reasons. 1. It destroys the ability for a debator to give alot of non-responsive arguements or just read through blocks. I know the moment i hear that same old case position on a topic, I am more likely to pull out my quasi responsive block rather than attempt to engage in a discussion of the arg. 2. Unique arguements force debators who are running them to actually win the round and explain the arguement. If you run a stock case without warrents, your judge is much more likely to fill in the blanks of missing warrents in the case than if you running something they have never heard before. This forces people the actually defend the validity of their arguements and really shitty weird arguements are gona fail and good ones are gona suceed. 3. It makes rounds less boring. Nobody really wants to engage a util deontology everyround or democracy is procedure vs. substinative. At that point debate just becomes going through the motions. 4. Unique arguements actually require someone to think and allows those who are guinuenlly good at debating to suceed where the extreemly prepped out debatore cannot. 5. It makes rounds less boring for judges. I know if I was judging i would not want to judge teh same round 12 times *2 flight, 6 or 7 rounds*. I think thats a reason y they probably deserve better speaker points. So if unique arguements make debate better, y not give them slightly extra weight in a close round?
Posted from: 140.247.244.142
February 24th, 2005 17:10
To add to what Ernie’s saying, I agree to some extent with most of Petey’s modifications to this (otherwise unobjectionable) paradigm. However, the idea of voting for whichever debater’s arguments are “newer” or more unique in the case of a “stalemate” (where both debaters extend comparable amounts of offense and neither does any weighing) is problematic for several reasons. First, the notion of which argument is more “unique” is completely subjective; in the vast majority of rounds I’ve judged this year, most debaters have run extremely banal and hackneyed arguments. It would be impossible to adjuciate in most of these cases who had the more “unique” arguments. Second, most debaters who try to run “unique” positions do so very poorly. Should I vote for a debater whose arguments were more poorly construcuted than his opponent’s, or whose case was incomprehensible, just because the argument is more “original?”
Ernie’s proposed solution is equally untenable. I for one am extremely uncomfortable voting on presumption, first because I believe negation theory has to be argued in the round (it’s not inherently there as it may be in policy, nor is it codified in some LD Rulebook), and second because it will tend to make the losing debater feel much more cheated or wronged than a slightly interventionist decision would. That said, I would rather do a little work to make one debater’s argument preclude the other’s, etc.
As a judge, if both debaters have offense to the standard and one weighs the arguments in his/her last speech and the other doesn’t, I will vote for the debater who weighs the arguments. If neither debater weighs, rather than go to “uniqueness” or presumption, I’ll examine which extension was cleaner, which argument has the clearer or more explicit impact to the standard, which argument’s warrant is better explained, etc. Although this may require me to intervene (that’s the debaters’ fault), I feel it’s at least more reflective of what occurred in the round than using presumption or some similar canon to make my decision.
I wrote this while watching The O.C., so it probably doesn’t make any sense.
Posted from: 130.64.130.53
February 24th, 2005 17:44
I think Matt generally has outlined a very clear paradigm for debate. He is brilliant. He did not tell me to write that in my post.
In terms of the idea of rewarding new arguments with speaker points, I disagree. Speaker points are a measure of how well positions were articulated in a debate round, not the arguments themselves or how they are set up in case or rebuttals. In tournaments, the point of speaker points are to differentiate between people with the same record. If debater A runs a kritik pretty well, but debater B runs a fairly mainstream argument really well, debater B ought to clear. This is because debater B is able to clearly outline a position and convinvingly argue it. Debater A might be creative, but if she doesn’t argue well (speak in a debate round well) it is counterintuitive to award her the extra speaker points.
I think people who run unique arguments are rewarded in a “natural selection” of arguments. Stock cases will be met with prepared stock answers, and most of the time, go away. Ultimately, the “fittest” cases (unique argument cases) will be those for which few answers have been developed. Running a unique case is a reward in and of itself. The incentive for debaters to write them is that they are harder to answer, which wins the creative debater more rounds. And because people who have a good understanding of debate are better at making up newer arguments, ultimately, debate in general is served.
Posted from: 209.30.71.78
February 24th, 2005 18:13
I think that more unique arguements are inherently good for debate. What leads to non-responsive block fests is most people running the same 3 or 4 arguements every round and while the arguements themselves maybe good I think encouraging unique arguements in debate is good for a couple of reasons. 1. It destroys the ability for a debator to give alot of non-responsive arguements or just read through blocks. I know the moment i hear that same old case position on a topic, I am more likely to pull out my quasi responsive block rather than attempt to engage in a discussion of the arg. 2. Unique arguements force debators who are running them to actually win the round and explain the arguement. If you run a stock case without warrents, your judge is much more likely to fill in the blanks of missing warrents in the case than if you running something they have never heard before. This forces people the actually defend the validity of their arguements and really shitty weird arguements are gona fail and good ones are gona suceed. 3. It makes rounds less boring. Nobody really wants to engage a util deontology everyround or democracy is procedure vs. substinative. At that point debate just becomes going through the motions. 4. Unique arguements actually require someone to think and allows those who are guinuenlly good at debating to suceed where the extreemly prepped out debatore cannot. 5. It makes rounds less boring for judges. I know if I was judging i would not want to judge teh same round 12 times *2 flight, 6 or 7 rounds*. I think thats a reason y they probably deserve better speaker points. So if unique arguements make debate better, y not give them slightly extra weight in a close round?
Posted from: 64.12.116.203
February 24th, 2005 18:43
The problem is that many debaters won’t write a case with a special structure (a K) or a unique case (a critical AC) because they know that they will not be accepted by all judges. There is little incentive to go do research on often difficult branches of theory when you can run a terrible stock case where the judge and opponent’s collective knowledge on the topic will fill in warrants and at worst, you have to prep out a few responses that will be made to your case.
Unique argumentation DOES NOT work with the “natural selection” you propose. In fact, the opposite is true: the most accepted arguments win becuase judges are familiar with them and can weave them into an RFD, can supply warrants, and feel that the argument is legitimate. (eg on last year’s jan feb, no judge is going to rant about how global warming is completely unsubstantiated crap and a ridiculous position to be running.) Additionally, because arguments like K’s are often A) rejected on face or B) judges require the aff debater only to make a weak theory response such as framers intent or “this isn’t CX”; unique argumentation is often ignored by debaters who prefer the safer route to the ballot.
To respond to David: This isn’t a straight up rule. My RFDs will not be: “(standards), (impacts), (who was more progressive).” All I’m saying is that I look favorably upon debaters who offer non-stock positions. Thus, if a round is really really really close (ie debaters had same quality of arguments impacting to equally proven yet different standards), and I need to intervene on something, I’d rather intervene on behalf of the non-stock debater, instead of splitting hairs to put together an RFD that could ahve gone either way. I doubt this will ever happen, but I just wanted to offer an alternate perspective and state it outright.
I think that even if my position is biased, its the most I can do to correct for a community that is astoundingly anti-intellectual. If you want to view it the “old-school” way, I am not persuaded by stock argumentation. Don’t like it? Adapt.
Posted from: 69.202.209.250
February 24th, 2005 18:51
This article tends to treat LD as if there is some obscure set of rules that are so open to interpretation or that the intention or design of LD is so old that the orginal reason for things thare are part of the event are long forgotten. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
LD should be judged for what it is. It is a value debate between two people. There is no “traditioanlist”, “neotraditionalist”, “progressive” or whatever. There are, however, bad judges and good judges. Despite that fact, and despite the fact that people judging from all over the country can even take the things in this article and interpret them entirely differently, there are debaters who can win every round at a large invitational.
The question is: did they win because the happened to have judges who liked every single thing they did? The obvious answer is: No, of course not.
If you take a person who has never heard of LD before and put them in a round and have them tell you who won, the person they pick is likely the best communicator. Best communicator. That is a term that deserves a lot of inspection.
LD is part of a group of events we have come to know as “Forensics.” While each event has its own set of specific rules, they are all about one things, and that is obviously, Communication.
To decide in what way arguments should be presented, that is simply. They need to be presented clearly and effectively. If you need to spend three minutes of your six or seven minute speech to justify the use of a particular type of argument, you are not communicating effectively.
Your job as a debater is get your point across and prove your side of the resolution. We cannot forget that in favor of trying to label judges as this or that or in trying to justify things that we feel need to or not tbe in debate. If this is misunderstood, let me put it this way:
If you are trying to convince a group of people that you are right about something, and they all speak Spanish and not English, to speak to them in English and then blame them for not understanding you because you feel that they ought to know English is not communicating effectively. If you have something you want them to understand, you speak in Spanish, plain and simple.
In the end, no matter how you debate, you will lose rounds somewhere along the line. If you find that a particular style is losing more rounds than another, you drop that style and figure something else out. A debater needs to learn how to convince judges to vote for him/her. We cannot and should not attempt to uniformize judging.
While it would be nice if I could take aside every judge that writes on a ballot “don’t focus on the value so much” or “You didn’t use any examples” and explain to them that the only thing he/she should be voting on is in fact the “value” in value debate, or that there is no such thing as a real life example of a value proposition being right or wrong, otherwise, it would not be a value proposition, I cannot do this. I must teach my debaters to win with bad judges. I don’t think there ought to be bad judges, but I don’t think there ought to be a lot of unavoidable things.
Posted from: 207.172.84.59
February 24th, 2005 19:01
To the poster above-
I’m going to borrow an example from Andrew Torrez. LD Debate is like court. If you send me into a courtroom and ask me to adjudicate, I will have no clue what the hell is going on. If you put someone in the back of the room who has never seen an LD round before, THEY will have no clue what the hell is going on. It’s equally damaging to debate to shove someone random into the back of the room and tell them to pick the “better communicator” as it would be to the legal system to shove me in the back of the courtroom and say “Adjudicate”. Yes, debate is about communication. On a much, much, MUCH larger scale, it is about education and logical argumentation. If communication has to be sacrificed to better warrant arguments, so be it.
Posted from: 64.12.116.203
February 24th, 2005 19:05
Thank you for carefully considering the specific arguments everyone made and urging us all to communicate better.
This is a good rule for life: “If you find that a particular style is losing more rounds than another, you drop that style and figure something else out.”
Remember, don’t try to fight the system. The only thing wrong is you.
Thank you,
The Management
Posted from: 207.172.84.59
February 24th, 2005 19:09
Dear Management/Petey-
It sucks that you can’t communicate as well as LD Coach/Judge’s kids. I’m sure if you knew how to communicate, you would already have 267 TOC bids and then you wouldn’t have to listen to Mr. Coach/Judge’s lecture about communicating well.
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
February 24th, 2005 19:39
Well, having read this, I’ll put out what I think a more educational counter-paradigm would be. At issue here is whether the education comes from being able to make clear communication or researching critical theory; at that level, the research seems to far outweigh any risks of being “uncommunicable” to the lay person - frankly, I think the typical Schreiber card about how we’ve turned into a combo of the movie Brazil and The Handmaiden’s Tale (yeah, that’s a poor summary) is much more educational then “eye contact and clarity”. That said, here’s how I’d judge a round (and I’ve been on the bottom of student votes at both Vassar and Lexington RRs but at the top of the “judges” vote):
The Basics:
-speed is fine. you’re not going to beat me and my uber-typing skills. if i miss something, and it becomes critical, i will call for it after the round. similarly, if a particular argument is based off the rhetoric in a card, then it’s reasonable for the judge to call for the card to get the exact rhetoric.
-i don’t thing anything else is inherent in LD. if they provide a cohesive reason why topicality is bad, then a neg could lose to an aff that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic. similarly, with running some sort of synecdoche scenario, there’s no need for universality.
-a negative doesn’t have to respond to the affirmative advocacy - if they can link the ac to a k, then there’s no need to go line by line. similarly, if the topic itself demands a k, then the neg can attack the wording itself, because presuming the affirmative is affirming, which i’ve already told you it may be able to get out of, then the affirmative is responsible for the topic wording.
-unless otherwise specified, the affirmative at some level takes a look not at the status quo but at a form of action. therefore, by taking an action in round by making a statement, it is sufficient to attack the affirmative without providing an alternative; meaning just running straight policy disads is sufficient to winning the round.
-no new argumentation in the 2nr/2ar.
that said, here’s how the round would go:
1) Affirmative Topicality - if not argued, then it’s granted in the round. If argued and lost, then vote straight neg.
2) Negative applicability - i hate to use the word topicality here, but the negative has to show that they somehow link to either a) the topic or b) the affirmative. Discursive arguments are fine; kritiks are fine; etc. But, if the affirmative links out, then I can only look at arguments made on the affirmative side of the flow. This doesn’t inherently mean voting aff, however.
3) An actual Kritik - the Kritik doesn’t deny the affirmative is internally consistent but rather that there’s some greater substantial harm from even granting legitimacy to the affirmative advocacy. at that level, i look to the kritik before i look to the affirmative advocacy. this isn’t an inherent negative ballot, but it does tell me how to weigh issues in the round.
4) Framework debate - on this topic, there’s a popular (well, at times used) card by harvard law review that says we can’t seperate church and state without the state using the rhetoric of religion or being exclusionary etc… these sort of framework arguments while not strictly “topicality” still prevent me from looking any further. this is also where “off case” arguments about rhetoric, etc, would fit in.
5) out of round impacts - this has to do with actual impacts to the state of LD debate - for example, gender biased language, etc. i also see no problem with running a kritik based solely on the use of the term women instead of womyn - even though this is a vocal activity, there’s some presumption of responsibility for what you say and what your intentions are. similarly, this is also where impacts about mindset would go.
6) in round impacts - this is where the proverbial nuke war cards are weighed.
7) value/criterial structure - if i have to go this far to make a decision, then there’s no need to use a progressive paradigm per se.
now, at the same time, this is a basic guideline. at the same time, any arguments made in round that have some sort of warrant behind them that says looking at value/criterion is more important then a kritik, etc, could change the way i weigh one individual round. at the same time, saying “this is not policy”; “this is not fair”; “this harms people from joining debate”; etc are not warranted arguments and are certainly not something to weigh a round off of.
Posted from: 69.202.209.250
February 24th, 2005 22:01
As far as comparing LD debate to a court room: the fact that a lay person cannot understand what goes on in a court room does not signify that not being able to understand an LD round is all right. You should realize, that that is in fact a problem with our legal system.
You say “Yes, debate is about communication. On a much, much, MUCH larger scale, it is about education and logical argumentation. If communication has to be sacrificed to better warrant arguments, so be it.”
However, if a debater cannot make logical arguments /and/ communicate well, while another debater can do both, it is clear that we would rahter have someone who can make sense and be understood. To say you should sacrifice communication to warrant arguments would mean that you are not very good what you are doing. I have coached debaters who could make excellent arguments, speak so well, a lay person could understand, and then go undefeated at the State tournament. Since it can be done, to say that you would allow communication to be sacrificed for any reason is simply to jusify bad debating and/or coaching.
Posted from: 162.84.241.63
February 24th, 2005 22:16
michael 5 6 and 7 are out of order.
assuming it is run correctly, 5 has to come after T b/c in-round discourse outweighs in round argumentation.
6 logically cannot come after 7 because 6 only matters insofar as it links to 7 so 7 is the prerequisite.
also what the hell does 2 even mean?
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
February 24th, 2005 22:24
Different activities have different levels of involvement and understanding. In courtrooms, there’s a reason the judge is there to decide matters of law while the jury decides matters of fact - it’s not that the judge is some all-knowing creature compared to the average juror, but rather that she integrates some sort of skill set and openness (and similarly judgement) toward a certain set of arguments. The judge in a courtroom, then, doesn’t have to be the brightest person in the world “flowing the trial” to know what an objection relating to hearsay means, and similarly what the exception to such an objection are. We don’t depend on the jury to do this, because they are unqualified for such a function. Similarly, a judge can throw out a jury’s guilty verdict if it’s inconsistent with law; this isn’t a problem with our legal system, but rather a matter of the doctrine being universally consistent.
This is paralleled in debate, except there is no separate judge and jury. One is not forced to adjudicate the facts presented in front of them to figure out “what is true” but rather which is competent within the framework of Lincoln Douglas Debate. I don’t think privacy ought to be valued above social welfare; that said, if I were a judge being asked to adjudicate a round on the September/October topic it’s not my duty to find a matter of fact but rather a matter of debate - in this case, who wins the round, not which is neccesarily true.
I never say commmunication and logical argumentation are paradoxical; on the contrary, I say that as a prepared LD adjudicator you are open to a certain level of communication other then that which one would have with a lay person - in this case, the specialization is in speed with a similar ability to analyze these impacts in round. You are the one who assumes talking quickly removes effective communication; on the contrary, I’ve flowed varsity policy bid rounds (which sadly my old school didn’t win last year) - it’s clear that I can handle a fast level of discourse and communication; in that case, going quickly is in fact the best way to get both worlds - not only do you relay information from one party to another, but the information is something inherently unique and not your typical oratory on Locke’s Social Contract.
As for going “undefeated” at the state tournament, I think this is where the conflict in LD debate comes - as an extracurricular activity, it is supposed to build some sort of skillset. Obviously, with the exception of John McKay, it’s not basketball skills. And, with the exception of Jon Schultz, it’s not winning money at poker. So here’s where we get the vital divide in LD debate - what’s a more important skillset:
1) Being able to say simple things with false emotion in order to be persuasive
or
2) Constantly being willing to challenge accepted ideas, norms, and being willing to make the most out of the time alloted to you
The first may be more useful in real life; but when has any aspect of secondary education ever been solely pragmatic and vocational? The second is a more liberal-arts based approach willing to question the assumptions that underly our life and work harder to find these better arguments; to say this shouldn’t be valued because it’s useless later in life is to say no one should be forced to learn US History, post-Algebraic math, etc. because the average person won’t need this in their daily life. It’s a ridiculously arbitrary shortening of what could be a much more educationally valuable activity.
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
February 24th, 2005 22:39
As a response to Jacob:
2 just asks me whether I look to negative case arguments. If the negative on this topic is about how bad uniting church and state is and the affirmative wins that (and i presume anyone decent could) this isn’t neccesarily about uniting or dividing (of course there are cards that say any change would lead to total control, but that’s beside the point) then there’s no reason to look at negative impacts of how bad uniting the two would be. Basically, the burden on the aff is topicality unless they argue T bad; the burden on the neg is to link to either a) the topic b) the aff case or c) the aff performance. If the neg case has nothing to do with any of the three, then the impact can be nuke war for all I care, it doesn’t really make a difference (unless there’s some unique unnumerated justification I haven’t seen or thought of).
5,6,7 are in the correct order - here’s why:
I think value/criteria are useless if we’re weighing actual out of round impacts. The implied impact of out of round impacts varies by what they say, but whatever their impacts are - they still form their own adjudication calculus. For example, a Zizek card could be run that says the inability of the affirmative to be consistent in it’s goals and in it’s theoretical fiat implementation is harmful to a communicative forum weighs to keeping that forum in check. This pre-empts even the best nuke war impact to human dignity, because the forum exists before the in round impacts are used (nuke war).
That said, you then go to in round impacts, which are then nuclear war card, etc. Quite simply, fair adjudication means looking at these impacts for what they are rather then how they relate to case structure. If impacts are terminal, infinitely enduring, or somehow otherwise inescapably bad then the winning position is clear because it again appeals to a sort of out of round sense of weighing impacts. The only time you then actually look at the value and criteria are when the previous aren’t sufficient to come to the decision - at that point, you weigh that debate solely when it’s a stalemate where one side says “harms womymn’s rights” and the other says “harms religious people’s rights” and neither dispute the other’s impacts.
As for discourse outweighing topicality, again, I say that itself can be argued and change the way I view the round. I even admit the affirmative arguably doesn’t have to be topical; and insofar as it can lose topicality and win discourse, on a theoretical level, discourse wouldn’t be a 1AC argument and therefore not neccesarily something a loss of topicality destroys. That said, an argument should at least be posed in round as to why being non-topical is acceptable, especially if the negative argument is that the non-topical nature of the aff precludes me from having the jurisdiction to vote for it. An example of this was me and Ryan Lawrence throwing around the idea that a negative kritik against an affirmative feminist case based on jurisdictional grounds of defining the state could itself fuel an anti-feminist movement because one of the excuses for inaction in the plight of womyn (Iran’s lashings and stonings for example) would be jurisdiction (we can’t enforce our morals, the UN can’t ignore their freedom, etc).
Posted from: 67.174.90.115
February 24th, 2005 22:43
OK- im mildly confused(granted, this is pretty much normal for me) why is it that “unique” arguments have to be the exact opposite of “stock” arguments? I really think that’s a false dichotomy, i know when i debated- turn the clock back a big whopping 2 years folks -the best debaters(clearly, not me) that year would write “stock” cases with “unique” twists to those arguments, they werent whipping kritiks/disneyland cases out of their expando’s. I recall that those rounds were not only interesting but also pretty damn educational.
my other comment on the paradigm is, i think judges should in rounds where the NR/2AR are completely reliant on card extensions and fairly poor analytics about said card’s read those cards. The problem is that no one is perfect, maybe the AC was unclear maybe the extension was unclear, regardless, in order to bring clarity back to rounds I think as a judge i have an obligation to read a card when it becomes the most important issue in the round. The other problem with the “no reading cards” idea is that i would say that probably 50% of cards i read generally dont say what debaters want them to say, so as a judge i think its important to know that a debater is actually extrapollating the right impact from a card that theyre extending.
like david, i was watching this while listening to Steven A. Smith, so it probably doesnt make any sense.
Posted from: 67.174.90.115
February 24th, 2005 22:50
*i was writing that
Posted from: 162.84.241.63
February 24th, 2005 23:11
michael you can’t weigh nuke war against Zizek (or, as you titled one of your cases, “Ontological Genocide” ;-) ) without a reference point by which you can weigh them against. That reference point is the standard. If ontology doesn’t matter b/c the standard excludes it, you can concede ontological genocide and still win the round. that’s why the standard comes before the arguments and impacts.
as for in round discourse, i don’t thi