Judge (policy debate)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of the series Policy Debate |
|
 |
|
| Organization | |
| Policy debate competitions |
|
| Format | |
| Structure of policy debate · Resolution |
|
| Participants | |
|
Affirmative · Negative · Judge |
|
| Types of Arguments | |
|
Stock Issues · Case· Disadvantage |
|
| Argumentative Concepts | |
Judging policy debate can be challenging. The total time available is short, the issues are complex and the judge may have personal beliefs that cloud impartiality.
Contents |
[edit] Speaker points
The judge has the responsibility of not only voting for the side that he or she thinks won the round, but also giving each speaker "speaker points." This is a numerical evaluation of the debator's speaking skills ranging from 1–30. The standard variation, however, is 24–29, with 30s reserved for "the best speaker you've ever seen." Half points are allowed, such as 26.5, and at the end of a debate tournament the best speakers are recognized, even though the difference between speakers is minuscule. Generally, speaker points are seen as secondary in importance to wins and losses. At most tournaments, the teams who "break" into elimination rounds - where the winner of the entire tournament will be decided by single-round elimination - are selected primarily by win-loss record, with ties broken, and match-ups determined, by speaker points.
[edit] Judge qualifications
Some circuits see lay or inexperienced judges recruited from the community as an important "part of the game." Debaters in these circuits must be able to adapt from presentations to individuals with no debate experience at all, to judges who have themselves been debaters. This use of lay judges significantly impacts delivery and argumentation as the rapid-fire style and complex debate-theory arguments are frequently incomprehensible to lay judges. For this reason, other circuits restrict policy debate judging to qualified judges, generally ex-debaters. The use of lay judges, and its impact in speed, presentation and argumentation is a source of great controversy in the US high school debate community.
See the following for recent reviews of the issue.
- Bob Bilyeu (April 2004). "An Army of One - A challenge to Debate Coaches". The Rostrum 78 (8): 72–86.
- John Durkee (April 2005). "DEBATING ABOUT DEBATING". The Rostrum 79 (8): 49-52.
[edit] Paradigms
Experienced debate judges (who were generally debaters in High School and/or College) generally carry a mindset that favors certain arguments and styles over others. Throughout time, the criterion upon which judges decide debates has changed. Currently increasingly popular within college debate, and trickling down into high school debate, is examining debate from an "offense-defense" paradigm. Because of this, it is customary for debaters to ask a judge what their experience and paradigm is for judging. Judging paradigms include:
[edit] Stock issues
A stock issues judge believes that the affirmative plan must fulfill all their burdens (see Stock Issues under Theory). If the negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. Stock issue judges generally prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues in round, and dislike arguments that seem to not relate to the topic on the surface.
[edit] Tabula Rasa
From the Latin phrase that translates to clean slate, tabula rasa judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. Tab judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. While a generalization is unfair, most tab judges will be comfortable with fast speeches, along with counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks. However, it is best to ask a tab judge on his or her preference in regard to specific types of arguments.
[edit] Policymaker
Policymaker judges tend to take the theoretical viewpoint that they are the "policymaker," and as such, they vote for the side that presents the best policy option. Typically, Policymakers vote heavily on disadvantages and counter-plans, and may not vote on kritiks or topicality arguments. However, more and more policymakers are beginning to incorporate parts of the gamer (see below) paradigm into their views, making them more open to kritical arguments. The basic policy of this paradigm is the weighing of the affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages.
[edit] Games player
Games judges were common in the 1990's, especially among young college debaters judging High School rounds. As the name suggests, these judges believe that debate is a game, and any argument that forms a coherent syllogism is "fair play" in round. Games judges will have no qualms about voting for a policy that vaporizes the moon, disbands the U.S. government, or any other policy action that would normally be considered "absurd" as long as one of the teams can prove that the aforementioned action is the most advantageous choice in the round.
[edit] Appearance
Appearance judges, often known as lay judges, judge based off of appearance and eloquence of speech. Appearance judging is normally discouraged, however, some judges lack experience with the complexities of debate theory and delivery and therefore subliminally resort to this style of judging. Speeding, Kritiks, jargon, and counterplans are strongly discouraged, and disadvantages should be run slowly and with detailed explanation.
[edit] Mutual Preference Judging
Mutual Preference Judging (MPJ) is a practice adopted at some high school and nearly all college policy debate tournaments. MPJ has each debate team rank each judge in the judging pool, and then assigns judges to rounds such that each team likes the assigned judges equally and prefers them as much as possible. MPJ has been criticized by some in the debate community who feel that it rewards niche styles of debating removes the competitive incentive to adapt one's speech to a diverse range of audiences. Others feel that it is necessary because the immense cleavage in the debate community between what arguments are and are not considered legitimate prevents certain judges from being impartial in "clash of civilization debates". Others have even voiced concerns that MPJ reduces the number of rounds judged by women and minority judges.
[edit] References
- Bilyeu, Bob. (2004). An Army of One - A challenge to Debate Coaches. Rostrum.
- Davis, Bill. (2001). Burning Bridges: Zen and the Art of Judge Adaptation. Rostrum. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
- Durkee, John. (2005). Debating About Debating. Rostrum.
- Heidt, Jenny. (2003). The Case Against Mutual Preference Judging. Rostrum. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
- Scherschel, Mary Rose. (1999). National Certification for Cross Examination Debate Judges: A Competitor's Perspective. Rostrum. Retrieved December 31, 2005.
