RFD: Respect For Decision
I have always found my self utterly disappointed in how some debaters conduct themselves at tournaments. I can understand occasionally being frustrated with a decision that did not go your way, but no judge deserves to be assaulted for their decision. On my team, students are taught to always treat judges and adults with deference. I can’t even begin to imagine one of my teammates causing a scene. Over the past four years of my debate “career,” I’ve noticed that this same philosophy is not shared by all competitors.
By no means am I trying to pull some “holier than thou act.” I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve been disappointed with decisions, whether they’re in prelims or late outrounds. What I’m angry about is the degree to which debaters and their coaches are willing to put aside their sense of decency and class in some vain attempt to change a judge’s mind.
Debate is ultimately a game, one in which you win and lose. I can’t help but laugh when debaters, who like to think of themselves as mature intellectuals, throw hissy fits as if they were four year olds. Other debaters will excuse this behavior: “It was a really close round,” “The judges were wrong,” “I can understand where she’s coming from,” or a litany of other excuses. In my mind there can be no excuse for a debater who decides to forgo her or his dignity to argue with judges.
Time and time again, I have witnessed debaters and coaches argue with, or even insult judges. These types of incidents are not a new phenomenon–what I’ve witnessed pales in comparison to the stories I’ve heard. The fact that this is a recurring problem is evidence that the activity needs to change.
Debaters fail to recognize a few key concepts.
First, most of the judges receive no paycheck at the end of the day. It always cracks me up that the judges who volunteer are the most likely to be hassled, as if they had not made a sacrifice for our benefit. Mommy and Daddy judges have given up their weekends to come and judge your ungrateful butts, so show some respect.
Second, debate is a subjective activity; there is no overarching criteria for what a debater has to do to “win” the round. It ultimately comes down to who convinces the judge. Different judges have different paradigms, and it’s up to the debater to adapt. If you lost the round, it’s because you did not do what was needed to convince that judge.
Third, there’s no incentive to improve once it’s the “judge’s fault.” Judges do not willfully make “bad decisions.” I’d contend that the decisions that judges make can never be bad, outside of cheating. The mentality dictating that the judge is at fault excuses the debater from acknowledging that she or he messed up. Debaters need to stop blaming judges and start learning from their losses.
By no means are debaters the only culprits. Coaches can be just as guilty. Take “The Lean,” which happens when coaches place pressure on judges. I lose respect for a coach who engages in after-debate debates with judges, especially if that coach did not even watch the round. The arrogance of a coach who expects her or his debater to win simply because she or he sat in the room just astonishes me; coaches who attempt to intimidate judges into voting for their students are down right contemptible. Debate should be a test of skill, not a question of who’s coach has the biggest political muscles–especially given that not every debater has a coach.
In fact, it seems that when coaches and debaters argue with a judge, they’re not actually trying to reverse the decision. It’s sort of like a mafia don selling “insurance.” The message becomes “drop this kid and I’ll pour sugar in your gas tank.” Each after-debate debate becomes a threat to the judge who made the “bad” decision and anyone else who would make the same mistake.
And has anyone else noticed that the debaters that whine and complain are the debaters that often have the least reason to do so? It always seems to be the rich privileged kids that are the most likely to go off on a judge. They’ve gotten so spoiled that they refuse to face the fact that they, like the rest of us, can be beaten.
As a solution, I believe that judges should simply dock speaker points from students who argue after the round–a 29 could very quickly become a 19 if you don’t accept your loss. Remember, asking for clarification of a decision is different than attacking that decision. Judges should demand from debaters the respect that they deserve.
Stop being a bunch of babies and treat your rounds just like they are–a game. Stop flipping out after the rounds, you just look childish and stupid. I really hope that debate can advance to the point that it truly becomes a test of skill and not a test of who can whine the best after the round. Show respect at tournaments for the coaches, judges and staff that make them possible. Otherwise, go home.
–
Justin Hinojoza was one of this year’s California State Champions and is a graduate of James Logan High School.
Victory Briefs Daily accepts guest opinion pieces from members of the debate community. As with any news media that prints or posts opinion pieces, reviewed and posted submissions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Victory Briefs, LLC. If you are interested in having a piece published, you can submit your draft to Jon Cruz.
Popularity: 1%
test
22 Responses to “RFD: Respect For Decision”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Crystallize: Deep Thoughts
- Engaging in Some Summer Reading?
- Public Forum Briefs: Nationals Edition #1
- Help Reconstruct History
- Lanier Achieves Middle School Threepeat
- React to...Slavoj Zizek
- Parting is Such Sweet Sorrow
- LD and the Search for Truth
- A Debater's Life: Accompanying Soundtrack
- Openness in Lincoln-Douglas Debate
Posted from: 63.202.80.247
June 21st, 2005 18:46
Debaters? Flip out at judges? I don’t know what you’re talking about.
By the way, I’m gonna kick your ass at VBI.
Posted from: 65.12.227.240
June 21st, 2005 18:48
So glad to see that others are cognizant of this issue…it’s a huge problem that seems to be multiplying. I was shocked when I observed and heard of such behavior last week at nationals. To me, we must respect the people who–as Justin explains–give up their weekends to judge for us.
Posted from: 146.115.115.110
June 21st, 2005 18:57
“Different judges have different paradigms, and it’s up to the debater to adapt. If you lost the round, it’s because you did not do what was needed to convince that judge.”
While I strongly agree that judges should never be assaulted in a rude fashion, and don’t want to be associated with those who do, I disagree with the notion that it is never the judge’s fault. For instance, there is nothing a debater can do when a judge intervenes on something completely arbitrary. To illustrate this point, I was told by someone that a judge disclosed that they had signed the ballot after the AC, because it never talked about priests abusing children. When debaters spend a lot of time and money on going to tournaments, it is understandable when they are frustrated over not being given a fair chance. Once again, I by no means condone being rude to or intimidating judges, I just don’t think that they should be held as infalliable.
Posted from: 68.198.144.175
June 21st, 2005 19:21
“And has anyone else noticed that the debaters that whine and complain are the debaters that often have the least reason to do so? It always seems to be the rich privileged kids that are the most likely to go off on a judge. They’ve gotten so spoiled that they refuse to face the fact that they, like the rest of us, can be beaten.”
I had assumed that this gem would have edited out somewhere along the line…
Posted from: 24.6.81.188
June 21st, 2005 19:24
I wanted to make a substantive comment, but I really couldn’t think of anything to add to what Justin said. I even like the solution, since I believe speaker points should account for integrity and character as well as technical skill and delivery.
Oh, I guess I should add that the world would be a better place if people didn’t complain about judges to their friends in private conversations as well. Even if the judge isn’t personally attacked, such complaints contribute to the kind of disrespectful attitude Justin writes about. It’s also pretty irritating after a while.
Summer leaves me with nothing to do but post meaningless comments on VBD. I think I’ll go read some Sedaris now.
Posted from: 24.97.233.114
June 21st, 2005 19:45
This article only furthers the respect I’ve held for Justin for quite some time. From my experience with competitors from James Logan High School, I can heartily attest to the validity of Justin’s statement that students from his team are taught to be respectful of judges and other adults. Tommie Lindsey is a class act… so is his team.
Posted from: 66.77.226.128
June 21st, 2005 20:12
I agree with the basis of the article, but I also agree with the third post on the thread. Sometimes judges can base a decision on what debaters may consider to be the wrong standard. Not every judge is as experienced in a field as many would like. If an LD judge bases a round off of a concession made in CX that a debater never pulls through, the judge, however inadvertentley, did make an unfair decision. It isn’t right to directly quarrel with the judge or attack their decision-making ability. However, some debaters do have the right to be frustrated.
Posted from: 69.249.50.38
June 21st, 2005 22:04
I think it’s actually kind of important to sort of make a big deal about things like intervention, esp. in the way that Aram mentioned above. There are a lot of former local debaters and current Parli debaters who use intervention in an attempt to demonstrate intellectual superiority over debaters in rounds. Maybe making a huge deal about blatant intervention is a key step in eliminating it. If interventionist judges faced harsh words from debaters, coaches and tab, they’d probably think twice before justifying a decision based on something that occurred outside of the round. It doesn’t even take any exeperience to avoid intervening as a judge, so this shouldn’t result in the mass verbal slaughter of parent judges. It should be reserved for the mentality that a given judge is smarter than both debaters in the round and should therefore make a decision based on something completely external.
Posted from: 68.161.157.9
June 21st, 2005 23:01
The reason debaters yell at/about decisions is because they want to win and they disagree with a decision, so they want to do better. The funny thing is that yelling about decisions is that it is the least strategic thing to do ever. If a judge knows you think they are a ‘bad judge,’ the most biased they will inevitably be against you the next time. It’s not like the judge was ever going to change her anyway! I think that students are allowed to dissent in the decisions because-as Justin says himself-debates are ultimately subjective and there is no True decision. So debaters can naturally disagree. It’s just the means by which they express themselves that counts.
Posted from: 69.149.53.189
June 22nd, 2005 00:29
I completely agree with Justin that under no circumstance should abusing or assaulting a judge be tolerated. My question to Justin is what activities are acceptable?
What are debaters/coaches allowed to ask/say to judges after rounds? Can you ask how they evaluated certain arguments? Why they didn’t evaluate certain arguments?
Are the big name coaches even allowed to watch their students debate in important rounds?
Lastly, how do you come to the conclusion that it is rich kids that disproportionately “go-off on” judges? Aren’t most of the kids going to a ton of TOC tournaments fairly well off?
Posted from: 69.149.53.189
June 22nd, 2005 00:30
I completely agree with Justin that under no circumstance should abusing or assaulting a judge be tolerated. My question to Justin is what activities are acceptable?
What are debaters/coaches allowed to ask/say to judges after rounds? Can you ask how they evaluated certain arguments? Why they didn’t evaluate certain arguments?
Are the big name coaches even allowed to watch their students debate in important rounds?
Lastly, how do you come to the conclusion that it is rich kids that disproportionately “go-off on” judges? Aren’t most of the kids going to a ton of TOC tournaments fairly well off?
Posted from: 68.157.58.78
June 22nd, 2005 06:04
After judging for the last 5 years, I learned that most debaters mistakenly view the activity as far more objective than it really is. I didn’t appreciate this when I competed, but it certainly would have made more successful. Ultimately, it’s not about right/wrong, but who is most compelling and persuasive.
Posted from: 171.72.5.12
June 22nd, 2005 08:22
I agree with the overall sentiment of the article but disagree with the notion that judges can never do wrong. I am a firm believer that people should treat debate with professionalism and dignity, but this goes for both debaters as well as judges. There is NEVER an excuse for a student to verbally or physically assault a judge, nor is there one for the judge to do the same to a student.
That being said, there are some judges out there that feed the problem by failing to treat THEIR job in a professional manner or students with the dignity they deserve. I have unfortunately seen a number of judges who treat ajudicating a debate round as an opportunity to prove that they are smarter than the debaters or relive their own days. It is extremely frustrating to see any student put a ton of time and energy into debate only to have a judge tell them that they didn’t vote for them because they didn’t make the same argument the judge would have or that in a class last week they read an article on the issue.
Moreover, there are cases where judges, either intentionally or unintentionally, favor students from their own states. It can be extremely frustrating to see two debaters give it their best and have a judge, particularly one with experience in the activity, vote on issues that were never argued by the winning side. I think this is more of a problem with younger judges, of which I am one, who are not seasoned enough to put aside their own personal views and vote on what actually happened in the round. It’s too tempting to try to score points and seem “cool” to debaters by trying to impress them than to make a fair choice.
Finally, I think judges need to be able to write a coherent RFD for the round, whether on the ballot or in the form of an oral critique. I have seen too many judges at all level of tournaments who simply refuse to justify their decision to a debater. I don’t condone the student trying to show the judge that they are dumb during an oral critique but simply writing “I vote Aff” on a ballot and walking out of the room, especially in late out rounds at tournaments such as Nationals last week, is not sufficient. I respect that it is the judges choice of whether or not they disclose to debaters, but at least write a coherent justification for the decision that has been made. At the very least if the RFD you write is horribly unfair a school can strike you next time.
So this brings us back to the question that is begged by the article which is what can be done in instances where you don’t agree with a judges decision? I agree with Justin that verbally abusing a judge is unacceptable, but surely there must be a constructive way to relieve frustration? I would love to hear comments from readers, debaters but especially coaches, on how you go about doing something CONSTRUCTIVE when a judge has clearly failed to live up to the professionalism that is demanded with their job. Do you just accept that judges sometime make decisions that cause your stomach to turn or is there something you can do about it. Particularly to more experienced coaches from a younger coach looking for answers I would love to hear your thoughts. In the end if we all exhibit the professionalism and dignity this activity deserves we may not agree, but we CAN coexist.
Posted from: 69.231.42.26
June 22nd, 2005 08:26
debate is a communicative activity. in the process of communication, we strive to speak so that we are understood. often, there are compliating issues in this process. for one, our point doesn’t make it from our lips to the hearts and minds of the adjudicators. in the semis at an important national tournament during my college days, a judge voted against my team because they said our big argument wasn’t a voting issue. it was our first voting issue. i was so disappointed and frustrated because he said that he would’ve voted for us had that argument been labeled a voting issue. and it was. the other two judges confirmed that i’d done so. nevertheless, there was a gap between that judge and me during my rebuttal. as i have gotten older, i’ve realized that i should’ve been more diligent in realizing that the critics weren’t the specialized flow hacks i preferred. in that debate, it that meant that i should’ve done a better job in getting my point across to people who were less experienced than my most preferred judges. after all, they were the ones who were kind enough to stick around and actually judge the debate so late into the tournament.
two, i think that judges ought to be able to justify their decisions with a caveat. while i agree that judges should be able to answer questions about their decision after the fact (such as answering how they evaluated certain arguments or how they would’ve evaluated alternate explanations), i don’t think the judge must submit themselves to verbal assault from a debater or their coaches. as a coach and competitor, i have been known to ask very direct questions about particular decisions. i try to stay away from asking those questions in a way that will embarass my students or the school where i am hired to work as the debate coach.
a coach with whom i had a conversation at nationals said it so brilliantly when he remarked, “this activity is the alternative to violence.” by constructively engaging the judges from whom we are to learn and the debaters from other teams, we create patterns of non violence. we find out how to respectfully disagree with others by learning to express our reasoning in a calm, straightforward way. once we lose the basic respect that is to gird our proceedings, then the line between our activity as a peaceful one (instead of a violent one) erodes entirely. our speech acts move from places that foster respectful, healthy exchanges to assaultive, angry diatribes that alienate more than they engage.
in the end, i think the point that justin’s making is that you can respect a decision without agreeing with it. debate is a metaphor for life in our society. people win, people lose. sometimes people get what they deserve and sometimes they do not. it may be trite to say this, but life is not fair. the greatest lesson i’ve learned from debate is to accept my losses as such and move forward from them. after achieving some great things and missing the mark in others, i’ve gained a model for how i can adjust to other disappointments in my life. without this focus, i really think we lose out on one of the best lessons we can get from being in this activity.
michelin massey.
Posted from: 66.27.188.11
June 22nd, 2005 12:19
Here here (hear hear? In speech, pronunciation > spelling). Logan is an excellent example of a team that always competes with dignity, and lord knows I’ve seen other teams try and fail to execute the ‘logan walk’ (anyone else who regularly attends local california tournaments knows what I mean). Justin makes a great point - truly good debaters win and lose with grace.
Posted from: 68.164.80.250
June 22nd, 2005 12:43
It seems that people are asking the same question: “What is acceptable?” Let me be the first to agree that there are instances when a judge egregiously intervenes or votes on prejudice. Those however, weren’t the subject of the article. I was talking in broader terms of when debaters flip out, even if the reason for decision has been clearly articulated. Regardless of the validity of the decision, students should never yell, curse or assault judges.
So now we come to how debaters should respond to decisions that seem to come from left field. The times that this has happened to me, I did not feel at all disrespectful when I asked for clarification. Good ways to phrase that sort of thing are “okay, so you didn’t think X, was strong enough?” That way judges don’t feel like they’re being attacked. Some times judges will even realize they made a whack decision, and even if it won’t change the outcome of the round, at least the judge can learn from her or his mistake.
This is what I meant when I said questioning a decision is not the same as attacking a decision. I agree with Jason Baskin that judges ought to be held accountable for their decisions, but they should still be held accountable by debaters in a respectful manner.
Alternatively you can talk to tab. Mike Joshi, my team mate, got shafted royally by a judge who was biased against Realism, and voted against him for no other reason. On the ballot Mike got 7 speaker points. But by talking to tab we at least got them to raise his speaker points to a more acceptable, if not ideal, level. Likewise informing tab about “bad” judges could help cull the judging pool.
Ultimately, however, no matter what you do, you can’t change the decision of the round, so why get fussy?
Posted from: 204.147.92.3
June 22nd, 2005 18:22
I would totally agree with Justin. I think his points are well-delivered and exactly right. While we are all competitive in this activity treating everyone with the respect they deserve can only make things better. Great article.
Posted from: 130.86.15.95
June 22nd, 2005 18:34
I don’t have anything substantive to say as I’m sitting in a library at Sac State during Boy’s State.
All that is important to say is that Justin and Bonan almost rival me in wealth of family guy quotes and tournament weekends were made infinitely more fun when I spent nearly the entire time insulting Justin. and vice versa. see ya kid.
Posted from: 146.115.115.110
June 22nd, 2005 18:48
Although I seem to have started some amount of disagreement, I just wanted to comment that I do agree with the vast majority of the article. I also want to throw in my respect for Justin, the James Logan team, and their coaches (two of whom were awesome lab leaders at VBI).
Posted from: 67.40.53.136
June 23rd, 2005 00:13
Wow- I’ve never heard of anyone actually debating an RFD with a judge.
Ok, so, obviously it’s uncalled for to insult a judge or do something crazy like that, but what if you just go back to school and gripe about it on Monday, and complain to your team about it? Because that’s been a tradition for almost all the debaters/forensicators I’ve ever known. Is there always an obligation to like a judge’s decision, or is peaceable, silent dissent permissable?
Posted from: 207.28.201.214
June 24th, 2005 16:58
I think that the comments about arguing with judges are right on. However, I find it interesting when judges “egg on” debaters after their moment–judges need to be adults and not react in a similiar manner. Not only that, but as a judge I’d rather hear the concerns of the debater, even if they are belligerent when the opposite is talking about the judge behind their back.
Posted from: 207.28.201.214
June 24th, 2005 17:00
I think that the comments about arguing with judges are right on. However, I find it interesting when judges “egg on” debaters after their moment–judges need to be adults and not react in a similiar manner. Not only that, but as a judge I’d rather hear the concerns of the debater, even if they are belligerent when the opposite is talking about the judge behind their back.
I am not perfect and I don’t claim to be. I have made mistakes in the past and it takes a while for things to “sink in.” For some it takes longer than others. So lets not forget that these are high school students. Let’s not forget that adults act in the same manner (Bob Knight, other professionals, etc). Let’s not forget that one moment does not make up who that person is. Keep things in perspective.
Be happy!