Author: Matt Liu, University of Wyoming Director of Debate When I was a grad student at Wake Forest, the Director of Debate, Jarrod Atchison, put together a fantastic guide for young judges to think about the process of judging. Those notes helped me evolve and grow as a judge, and I credit it for many of the better decisions I have proffered over the years. Years later, this is my attempt to give back. Below is a slightly modified version of my take on the same idea (this was originally written as a letter to new members of the Wyoming team). I share it for two purposes. First, I think many debaters could benefit from some insight into what it’s like to be on the other side of the room. Judges aren’t robots, and understanding that and how your judge might be thinking about the debate might help you to communicate more effectively. Second, I’m sharing in the hopes that some young or new judges might find something useful here. That’s not to say that this is a definitive guide on how to judge, but part of a much larger conversation. We’re all still learning, I still love hearing about differences in how others approach judging. The anxiety I felt as a young judge did not fade overnight. It took me years to be consistently comfortable as a judge. Below are my thoughts on judging, and the habits I’ve developed, in case you might find them helpful. I believe they’ve helped me both be a better judge and be much more consistently confident and comfortable as a judge. This is just my process, it doesn’t make it the best. Do what works for you. The only universal statement I will make about judging is that debaters work hard at what they do: judges should too. Read the complete article below the fold. “What makes a Good Judge? As Dallas told me the first year I was judging at the NDT, people look for two things when determining if someone is a good judge: 1) Are they trying their hardest? 2) Are they willing to vote for the team that won?” – Jarrod Atchison
Before proceeding to specific tips, I want to outline my judging process. Here is a full(ish) description of my judging process beyond just flowing. A. During speeches- “flow management.” The primary part of this is drawing boxes around the arguments that I think are most important. For example, every K bomb/trick/impact/framework argument/separate link etc that happens in the block, I box. I also sometimes circle key warrants, which I guess makes a circle like a slightly less important box. This not only helps highlight important arguments, it helps create organized sections for your flows. A box generally marks the start of a section of the debate, and the next box often ends it. Sometimes you’ll get some random stuff that’s not part of the section wedged in there, and you can start to easily see where debaters waste time (if there’s a new argument happening but no box, that highlights exactly where debaters were wasting time- and can help you answer a key RFD question: “where could I have saved time / been more efficient”). Having organized sections for your flows is important because line-by-line debate organized enough to keep your flows in order for the entire debate is unfortunately far too rare. Most important, the boxing process is vital to the most important thing I do during the debate- mapping the arguments during prep. B. During prep- mapping arguments. During prep, especially after the 1NR, I map the arguments in the debate. For me that just means writing lists of the key arguments. That usually means a list of the boxed args- and without the boxes, I would never have enough prep time to complete the lists and think about them. K debates probably illustrate best why this is useful, but again, it’s immensely helpful in all debates. Having a list of every tricky/important argument the neg made extending the K in the block (and the tricks/important args from the case debate too) helps me keep track of the debate (most important), start to develop an understanding of the stakes of each argument (“oh wow, that’s a good arg with big implications- they need to focus on that or they’re toast”), and start to develop preliminary ideas on feedback for the debaters (“what do they need to say to answer this?”). C. During RFD time- the majority of my time is spent deciding each “mini-debate.” Who won the COVID thumper? Link vs link turn? Framework? Etc. FYI: I have 4 sheets of flow paper dedicated to the judging aspects of debate: comments/feedback (I also flow CX, keep track of prep time, and take notes on speaker points on this flow), mid-debate argument maps (the lists, see above), RFD mini-debates, and my written decision. The argument map/lists helps a ton setting up my RFD mini-debates. The RFD mini-debates sheet of paper tends to go horizontal for me. I give each position in the debate a semi-arbitrary amount of space, then list each mini-debate on that position. Each mini-debate gets 3 columns: aff args, neg args, and RFD. A lot of people focus on what you should decide first, the micro issues or the big questions. I guess I’m mostly a micro-issues person. I try to start on the micro-issues that I think are important, and all the things I’ve done till this point usually help me start in the right place, but adding up the RFDs for the mini-debates helps me confirm what the important macro issues are. Sometimes debaters see what’s important and make it easy, often they don’t (even at the highest levels). That’s okay, this is hard stuff. It doesn’t mean they’re bad. Once I’ve made my decision then it’s time to prepare to communicate it. This is my 4th and final judging flow: my written decision. It’s not enough to have the RFD mini-debates: that helps tell me who won, but it doesn’t help me tell the debaters that. The piece of flow paper that has my written decision is organized, it addresses the arguments in order of importance (which helps pre-empt and deter “but what about X” interjections). Readers beat talkers. I suggest you write out all or significant parts of your ballot. I always write “I voted ____ for ____.” In elims, before that I always write out “Congrats on getting to the X-finals of the 20XX (tournament). The winner on a _____ is _______ from ______.” Just like you prep the top of an OV most precisely, so should you an RFD. This habit may seem excessive, but helps me always start my decision from a routine, which builds confidence and momentum. Below are a few specific tips for judging and thinking about judging. 1. Work hard during the debate to judge the debate. This tip is probably already evident from the above section on my process for judging a debate, so I won’t spend too much time here. For me, the most important part of everything above is using prep time to map the arguments in the debate. I absolutely could not judge a K or T debate without doing this, but I find it to be immensely useful regardless of the arguments. “After I make my decision, I sit down and write the literally first 45-60 seconds of my decision out so that I am actually reading aloud the short synopsis of how I voted. This is something I learned from Repko. A few years back I judged the semis of the NDT, Repko took an extra 1.15 hours to decide after me. Immediately after I was done I knew exactly how I had voted, but since I didn't write out my actual RFD word for word I didn't feel as confident when it came time for me to actually deliver my decision. He said that he always writes out the beginning just to make sure the decision starts on the right foot. I have done it ever since and it has helped immensely. For elim day in particular, I write out a good chunk of my RFD just in case someone decides much later than me.” – Jarrod Atchison 2. Decision time is not just for deciding, it’s for crafting an effective delivery of your decision that both explains your decision to debaters who may be hardwired to resist it, offers answers to the questions they will ask, and offers useful advice for them moving forward. This is something I, like Jarrod, learned from Repko. Will Repko, the head coach at Michigan State, is notorious for long decisions, but he’s also widely acknowledged as a fantastic, next-level judge. Say Repko and another judge are judging the same debate and our random other judge decides in 10 minutes and Repko decides in 90 minutes. They vote the same way on the same issues. Why did Repko need the extra time? Do you really think Repko needs the full decision time to decide who won the debate? Repko didn’t use the extra time to decide the debate, he knew who won before our hypothetical random other judge. Repko used the extra time because knowing who won and explaining it to the team who lost are not the same thing. It is a perennial, classic mistake of debaters to think some verbal slip-ups or lack of confidence during an RFD means the judge was wrong. I have seen countless debaters blow off a decision that was right, and that they could have learned from, because it was imperfectly delivered. Those debaters are making a mistake, but debate is hard and intense and emotional and it’s difficult to take an imperfect RFD under those conditions. We should work hard to craft excellent decisions not because we’re afraid of debaters throwing temper tantrums if we don’t, but because in this activity where everyone is working hard and pouring their soul into it we should do our best to communicate why this time, that wasn’t enough – knowing how hard that is to hear. After you’ve decided, and after you’re sure you can effectively explain that decision, the remaining task is making sure you have answers to the questions you will be asked, and making sure you have helpful feedback to offer. You need to be ready for the two types of questions: A. “What about X” B. “What could I have done better?” (you need to have an answer to this question for each rebuttal), “how do I answer (the arg that I lost on)?”, “what should I have done,” and “where could I have saved time?” For (A) (“what about X”), the best two pieces of advice I can give you are: first, double-check your flows as a last and exhaustive step before you decide. Double-check flows that seem less relevant. Flip every page. Second, write two ballots: one in the opposite direction, for the other team. A lot of people say to do this, and it’s kind of fun to say you did it. This is good advice, but I don’t always do it. I do in very close debates. For (B) (“what did I need to do”): “I don’t know” is a sucky answer to give. Working hard during your decision to think about these questions before you announce can help you avoid saying “I don’t know.” But saying “I don’t know” is often better than starting to think of answers to these questions only once you’ve been asked it. When you need to, you can say “I don’t know.” It’s perhaps helpful to add: “if you’re willing to give me a little time [after the rest of the RFD] I’m happy to stay a bit and help you brainstorm.” 3. The worst people in the world gchat / watch sports / etc during debates. Don’t be the worst people in the world. Don’t bring shame upon our house. This is like stealing prep- even signals that lead to you being perceived as doing it are bad, even if you’re not actually doing it. 4. You’re going to use prep time for a lot of things. Thinking about the debate. Being nervous about our debaters. Being anxious about things. Your mind will wander. The start of a speech is the most important time to bring your focus in. Don’t let a debater start talking until you’ve put everything else outside of your mind- even your thoughts about arguments that have come up in this debate. 5. Think, don’t record. Auto-pilot is not sufficient. Evaluate the arguments while debaters are making them. Tuning out (even while still flowing) is a recipe for disaster. Having written some or most of what someone says is not going to add up to a cohesive record of the debate. You’re going to forget what your shorthand means. Without evaluating and understanding both the argument and its significance in the debate, your flow is not going to be a useful enough record to look back on to decide the debate. Understanding the args and their importance helps you create a more useful flow for reviewing later. 6. Be rested. Sleeping sufficiently and eating well (whatever that means for you, but probably an emphasis on protein) are an important part of judging. This places limits on how late you can stay up cutting cards. You need to establish a minimum number of hours of sleep you need to be a competent judge. 7. Feedback: how much? For many judges, the golden rule is 3 key pieces of feedback for each team. You would not be surprised to find out I often disagree. I usually record a comprehensive amount of feedback, but I adjust how much I actually deliver by reading the room (at least, I try to make my best attempt. This is something I’m still working on!). Sometimes a losing team will want no advice. Sometimes you just need to offer less advice to hold your audience (for a variety of reasons). Oftentimes, I do actually revert the rule of three. Sometimes, debaters will want to know everything they can do to improve. Those are some of my favorite RFDs, but it’s definitely not all my RFDs. FYI, I try to actively record advice during the debate, but not during speeches. 8. Flow cross-x. The record is important. Once every three tournaments an RFD will turn on the interpretation of a CX question or answer. More often, how an issue was explained in CX will frame your decision, and it will be important to be able to explain to the debaters when and how that key impression was formed, with specifics. During prep I often try to make decisions about who won important, complex questions in CX. I try to find the questions that are important and will determine big parts of the debate, and then figure out the best answers to them -- even the answers that weren’t given (especially those ones). Figuring out those answers during the debate (prep time) will help you give some of your best advice after the debate. 9. Be humble. Debate is hard. Remind yourself that before and during your decision. When folks are making silly errors, remember how much longer you’ve been doing this than them. Maybe you’ve had more help and resources. Either way, the 10th debate in a row for you might seem routine but the person you’re judging could be at a breaking point. Try to give the advice you would want on your worst day, not your best day, because you never know when someone is having their worst day. Read the room- when they can handle more, you’ll almost always know. This is hard, and all too often I have failed at it. The only thing we can do is remind ourselves to be better. 10. Shut it down when the winning team wants to talk before the losing team has gotten their entire decision and had all their questions answered (this advice is focused on pre-lims, elim dynamics are different). The losing team deserves to find out why they lost and have their questions answered before the winning team gets their feedback. You’re the only person in the room with the authority to intervene to stop this, no one can step in for you. Some minor thoughts: Do I read evidence during the debate? Nope. If you do, that’s fine. I’m not going to get on a soap box, not even going to try and persuade, I’m just going to offer a small explanation of my approach. I often think I would make “better” decisions if I did read evidence during the debate. Decisions more attuned to the evidence, to the finessed arguments that debaters and coaches prepare. But that finesse has to be orally delivered and understood for me. Debate is a communication activity. Maybe the blocks are written in a way that communicates the args, but the nuance didn’t translate into the oral delivery. I believe that reading the ev during the debate has an impossible-to-take-back impact on my evaluation of that. “You can’t unring that bell.” Clipping (when debaters insinuate they read more of their evidence than they actually did by not reading some of the highlighted text)- if there’s no video/audio recording, there’s no way to evaluate if someone has clipped. If debaters are experienced, once the charge is made, that ends the round: it’s an up-or-down decision on the ethics challenge. It’s unfair to be subject to an ethics challenge and be expected to debate on a level playing field after that. Younger/inexperienced debaters get a caution that continuing with an ethics challenge is an all-in move and ends the debate. Think about where the line between mumbling / blurring words / inaudible communication and clipping is. You don’t want to decide that for the first time during a round. Sidenote: for me, inaudible communication that falls below clipping = cards struck out on my flow. If I can’t understand it, I don’t evaluate it, and I don’t read it later. Be aware of time limits while you’re judging. This decision comes before your debaters. Avoid distractions. Headphones can help. In his set of notes to Wake graduate students, Jarrod wrote: “I usually go up to the debaters to call for cards and hand them a sheet of paper with list of cards I want, so as to not influence the other judges.” While this is usually less relevant these days, I liked the way it made me think about judging on panels. When on panels- virtually never start fights. Respect the other judges. I hope some of this is helpful! Matt
1 Comment
Lyle
8/14/2020 10:49:26 pm
This is super useful, thoughtful, and actionable for those of us who want to improve as judges... and for debaters who want to get in the mind of judges too! Great stuff!
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
MissionWyoming Debate Roundup is dedicated to providing quality debate content to Wyoming and Rocky Mountain area high school debaters. We’re a resource for Wyoming debaters by Wyoming debate coaches. Categories
All
Archives
February 2024
|