Judging Philosophy

First and foremost, debate is an exercise in argumentation. Unfortunately, many debaters equate argumentation with absolute logos, which I believe leads to fast-paced delivery styles in an effort to maximize argumentation.  Argumentation should also include pathos and ethos.  Delivery is important; I appreciate good openings, closings, and style.

HEARING: 

You should know that I have quite the odd hearing problem, or hearing loss, present in both ears.  I don’t wear hearing aids because, per my ENT and Audiologist, the benefit would be minimal and I have learned to adjust to the loss over the years.  Yes, I can hear you; yes, I can engage with you.  Hearing loss is more complex than that.  What it does mean is that I have difficulty hearing certain ranges of sound—the mid/lower decibel levels of “normal” conversation speech.  The strange thing is I can hear people speaking softly, and hear them in the higher decibel levels of “normal” conversation speech—it’s just a particular range in the middle that I cannot hear.  The hearing loss is usually referred to as a cookie-bite loss, since the audiology chart looks like someone took a bite out of a cookie.  (My mother said that was appropriate since I always loved Cookie Monster as a child).  My cookie-bite loss becomes problematic when debaters engage in high rates of delivery where the pitch of their voices tends to go up, and the loudness of their delivery tends to go down.  Sometimes, these debaters will weave in and out of my hearing range.  If you are speeding, you better be LOUD, and you better be CLEAR.  According to my ENT, if I can’t hear you, its because “you sound like a girl.”  I still don’t know how to take his statement, as it could be considered offensive, humorous….or advantageous!

SPEED:

In my opinion, speed reduces the debate to an exercise in logos.  Speed excludes the lay audience and seems antithetical to a public democracy.  However, I recognize that debate is not intended to be inclusive—much like other competitions such as chess.  In that sense, debate can be viewed as a game—and speed is one way of winning the game.  The problem for me comes not in judging a fast round, but WHEN.  Chances are, I’m not going to be in the mood to judge a fast round at 7:45 AM, especially if I was up judging debate until 10:00 PM the evening prior (as happened at our first tournament). 

Second, I find it increasingly problematic that students engage in rapid style delivery in NFA LD when the rules explicitly forbid them.  There is plenty of room for blame to go around here (from coaches, students, judges—myself included).  My concern isn't that students necessarily speed in NFA LD, but that they don’t know how to slow down and adapt, even when they are instructed by the judge to do so. 

TOPICALITY

Yes, it is a voter.  Sometimes it is a reverse voter (dependent upon abuse). In short, I rarely vote on Topicality unless some form of unique abuse is proven in the round.  Please be sure to have clear standards and a counter-definition.  I rarely vote on T in metaphorical rounds of Parli debate.  I will listen to counter-standards, so run them. 

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

I am not a fan of the pomp and circumstance in rounds, including the “thank-you’s” to everyone in the room at the beginning of every speech (including rebuttals).  Do me a  favor and skip the thank you’s—just thank me for judging after the round.  Or better yet, thank me by asking for my judging paradigm and then following it during the debate.  I would much rather hear an interesting, attention gaining introduction before the plan text. 

Moderate knocking is fine.  Knock for yourselves or each other—because in short, I don’t pay attention to it unless it becomes a distraction (which it usually is—see HEARING). 

Points of Order. 

I understand that points of order are a  part of the culture and rules of Parliamentary Debate.  However, my preference is for you to allow the person speaking to finish their speech uninterrupted.  If you are pointing out new arguments, then I am going to see them on my flow.  If I didn’t catch the new argument on my flow, I’m probably not going to believe your point of order anyway.  If you have an ethics charge or some other matter, please raise your point during the speech.

Abusing the other team

Any language that attacks the character of the other debater is abusive and a reason to lose the round.  In the past, I have heard debaters call each other “stupid” , “dumb”, “lame”, and referred to arguments as “crappy arguments” and —- even called each other “retarded”.  I will not tolerate such abuse.  Choose your words carefully and treat each other with respect.

The K Debate

The only time I have voted for a K is when the Government/Affirmative completely mishandled the position and demonstrated inferior debating abilities.  Other than that, K’s that critique language or other mindsets are flowed and as long as the Government makes reasonable responses, I will not weight the K in the round.  I tend to use a policy-maker paradigm in that regard and I want to move towards the plan debate as quickly as possible. 

On Case Clash/DA’s

I tend to give leniency on “uniqueness” for opposition/negative teams when running DA’s.  Especially in NFA LD where Affirmatives can build a very tight case, or in Parli where the Government can interpret the resolution to specific parameters.  DA’s always help, but I will flow on case responses too.  There are still stock issues to consider, including harms, solvency, inherency, and minor repairs.  Run those on case, and you might have my ballot—you can seal the deal with a DA. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chris Roberts

 

Doctoral Candidate

Rhetoric and Organizational Communication