2013 Marquette University Debate Institute Judge Adaptation By

2013 Marquette University Debate Institute Judge Adaptation By David Henning Director of Debate at Lakeland College, The Sheb and Sheboygan North

Varsity Judge Adaptation Adapting to judges at the Varsity policy level is extremely important. Judges approach debate from different perspectives, and have different expectations and skill levels. It is essential to determine a judge’s paradigm, expectations, likes/dislikes and skill level before each round, and then adapt to that judge as best you can. Successfully adapting to your judge can mean the difference between winning and losing a round, and can set the tone for your interaction with that judge for the entire debate season. Forging a good relationship with each judge can also mean the difference between winning speaker awards rounds or not.

Varsity Judge Adaptation A few judges will provide a written judging philosophy. If they do so, read it. And don’t throw it away in the presence of the judge. I’ve provided an example of my Policy Debate Judging Philosophy as an example. Other judges do not carry written philosophies, but have their judging philosophy posted on one or more policy debate websites. Many Wisconsin Varsity policy debate judges have their philosophy on the Wisconsin State Debate Tournament Wiki Page. The link is below: http: //wsdtparadigms. wikispaces. com/

Varsity Judge Adaptation Assuming that you have internet access at the tournament, you can go to this page and find your judge and read their philosophy. If not, read the philosophies before the tournament, and/or print them and take them with you. Be aware that many judges do not update their judging philosophy regularly, so it is still a good idea to ask the judge if you have specific questions that are not answered by their posted judging philosophy. Many judges also have their judging philosophy posted on the National Judge Philosophy Wiki Page. That link is below: http: //judgephilosophies. wikispaces. com/ It operates the same way as the Wisconsin Judge Philosophy Wiki.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Conduct By conduct I mean the way in which you conduct yourself in the debate. There a few questions you should ask the judge before the round if you are unfamiliar with that judge. 1. Speed. Rate of delivery is perhaps the most contentious issue in Wisconsin Varsity policy debate. Some judges are fine with speed; some hate it and will not listen to it. Ask them about it.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 1. Speed a. It is essential that you know the judge’s stand on speed, and what their definition of speed is. A fast rate of delivery to some is painfully slow to others. b. Go only as fast as you need to in order to get your arguments out or cover the other team’s arguments. c. Be clear. Even judges who are comfortable with speed can’t compensate for potatos Foucault in your mouth.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 1. Speed d. Watch the judge periodically to see if he or she is flowing—is the judge keeping up, struggling to get everything down, or has the judge given up and thrown their pen down in disgust? Adjust your speed accordingly.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 1. Speed e. In elimination rounds, sometimes you have to go for two of the three judges. I’ve had teams essentially ignore me and go for the two judges who dislike speed, and I’ve been in rounds in which teams go for the two judges who can handle speed and ignore the one who can or will not.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 2. Tag-Team Cross-examination. Also controversial in Wisconsin. Ask the judge specifically about this. A judge who is OK with tag-team cross-ex is usually OK with you giving your partner blocks or prompting them during their speeches. If you are unclear, ask them what they mean. 3. Laugh at the judge’s jokes. They are always funny. 4. If the judge seems uncomfortable with you asking questions about their expectations or likes/dislikes, stop asking. Sometimes judges are inexperienced and are afraid to answer questions about their approach to debate.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 5. After the round, ask the judge if he or she needs to see any evidence before packing up. Few things are more annoying than asking for a card when the team has already put it away.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 6. Ask the judge if he or she has any comments after the round. Some judges will disclose the decision and provide clear explanations for their decision. Some judges do not disclose but may offer some comments. Some judges neither disclose nor comment after a round. Although it is far superior educationally to have the judge disclose and then provide comments, it is each judge’s choice to do so or not. Respect the judge’s decision to disclose, comment or say nothing.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Arguments Judges react to arguments differently. You cannot assume that because a judge is at the Varsity policy level, they will like (or even tolerate) all of the arguments you like or wish to run. It is often wise to ask your judge how they feel about particular arguments and whether they will vote for them, and, if so, what do you need to do to win that argument. Be aware that judges are not always consistent in their announced expectations, so the more information you have on a judge, the better.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Arguments 1. Communicate with the judge before the round. Read his or her judging philosophy carefully and ask any questions you might have. If the judge does not have a judging philosophy, ask two or three questions about what they like/dislike on a general level, like topicality or kritiks. 2. Do not bombard the judge with lots and lots of questions. Just like you, they are trying to get ready for the round. Asking lots of questions means you aren’t setting up, and are therefore delaying the tournament. That usually gets the judge in trouble, not the debaters, so don’t do it.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Arguments 3. Know the arguments you run. Just because a judge likes or will listen to particular arguments, like kritiks, doesn’t mean they will automatically vote for them. There are good kritiks and bad kritiks, and teams often run good arguments poorly. It isn’t the judge’s fault, nor is the judge biased against you, if you run an argument poorly and lose. The fault is yours.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Arguments 4. Don’t try to force a judge to vote for something they don’t like. Some judges dislike arguments, like kritiks, yet teams will try to “make” the judge vote for it anyways because they are “crushing” the other team on it. I get this with Topicality all the time. I intensely dislike the way most Topicality arguments are run. I often get teams who will go for Topicality in the 2 NR and yet have never met my standard for them to win it. And when they lose they get mad.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Paradigms Most judges will have, or at least fall under, one of the several common judging paradigms. Each paradigm will be briefly explained below, but remember that each explanation is a generalization. You cannot assume that every judge working under a paradigm is the same and will react in the exact same manner. Be aware that each judge is an individual, and therefore has individual variations on their particular paradigm. Again, pay particular attention to their judging philosophy and to their answers to your questions before the round.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Paradigms 1. Stock Issues. You will encounter Stock Issues Judges at the Varsity policy level in Wisconsin debate. They are more numerous here than in many other states, but will not be as numerous as the judges you encounter at the novice level. a. Stock Issues judges expect the affirmative to win all of the stock issues (Significance [which I s always subsumed by harms because any harm is significant]; Harms; Inherency [often embedded into the harms contention]; Topicality; Solvency), colorfully called the SHITS. As an affirmative, demonstrate how you win each of these stock issues.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Paradigms Stock Issues b. Stock Issues judges usually will vote against the affirmative if they lose any one of the stock issues. However, the negative must conclusively prove they win at least one of the stock issues. c. Stock Issues judges tend (but remember this is a generalization) to be older and/or less experienced Varsity policy debate judges. Explain your arguments clearly without being condescending.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Paradigms Stock Issues d. Stock Issues judges may prefer “real world” arguments to big-sig ones. They may be inclined to ignore impacts of global nuclear war or extinction of all life on the planet. e. Stock Issues judges almost always hate speed. Go slower than you usually would. f. Stock Issues judges may have other dislikes—tag-team cross-ex, counterplans or kritiks—so ask them before the round. They may also be uncomfortable answering questions before the round, so react accordingly.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Paradigms 2. Policy-maker. This is probably the most common paradigm you will encounter at the Varsity policy level. Policy-makers view themselves as, well, policy-makers. Debate is viewed through the prism of the policy world, and each judge makes policy.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Paradigms Policy Maker a. The affirmative must present a policy that falls under the jurisdiction of the resolution. The affirmative must identify some problem, harm or flaw in the status quo and offer a plan to solve or fix it. For some policy-makers, the affirmative must also present an inherent barrier to the enaction of the affirmative plan.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Paradigms Policy Maker b. The affirmative usually wins the round by demonstrating the advantages that result from their plan, often of the big-sig nature like global war or destruction of the biosphere. The bigger the impact, the bigger the advantage. Put the bodies on the flow. c. The affirmative must solve for their advantage area, or at least prove that there is a chance their plan will solve. d. Negatives can either defend the status quo, present disadvantages to the affirmative plan, or present a competing alternative policy (counterplan). .

Varsity Judge Adaptation e. Policy-making rounds often are decided on the basis of weighing the affirmative advantages against the disadvantages and/or the counterplan. There is often a risk calculus involved also, especially when negatives attack solvency and/or affirmatives prove that the status quo or the counterplan cannot fully solve for the affirmative advantages.

Varsity Judge Adaptation f. Policy-makers are somewhat less likely to like kritiks and framework arguments, but ask the judge to make sure. g. Ask the judge about other concerns, such as speed and tagteam cross-ex. You cannot generalize about a policymaker’s acceptance of speed, tag-team cross-ex or other contentious practices. h. Each policy-maker is different. Some view themselves in a void; others view themselves as a Congressman or the President. At times (often topicality) a policy-maker may view her or himself as a Supreme Court Justice.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 3. Tabula Rasa. The other common paradigm you will encounter at the Varsity policy level. The name “tabula rasa” is derived from the Latin, in which it means “blank slate. ” As such, tabula rasa judges try to enter each round with no pre-existing disposition toward arguments, styles, theory or even paradigms. You will often hear this referred to as “tabs. ”

Varsity Judge Adaptation 3. Tabula Rasa. a. Tabula rasa judges attempt to decide the round on the basis or criteria the debaters have presented in the round. As such, framework arguments often assume a great deal of importance. So, too, can arguments about which paradigm the judge should adjudicate the round in.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 3. Tabula Rasa. b. Tabula rasa judges try not to rule out any specific arguments, even if they are counter-intuitive (such as the earth is flat, nuclear war is good), but often they do have exceptions to that general rule. c. Speed is less of a concern to many tabula rasa judges, but clarity is a concern for all of them. Follow my advice on speed and judges for “tabs” judges as for any other judge. d. Tabula rasa judges are often considered “liberal, ” although I think such labels don’t really fit well with debate. e. Conditional arguments and theory arguments are usually fine per se, but again, individual judges may have limitations.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 3. Tabula Rasa. f. Don’t insult the judge’s intelligence or agency. Simply because a judge is a tabula rasa “blank slate” doesn’t mean they throw their own intelligence out of the round. Don’t tell a judge they “have to” vote on something “because” they are tabula rasa. You still have to win arguments and explain why you win the round. g. Some judges are willing to listen to arguments that have “outside-of-the-round” impacts such as impacts on the activity or impacts in the real world. That could include project arguments or performance debate.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 3. Tabula Rasa. h. Realize that no judge is completely tabula rasa (it is impossible to be). As with all judges regardless of their paradigm, read their judging philosophy and communicate with the judge about specific likes or dislikes. Also talk with other teams that have debated in front of that judge, or even coaches who know that judge.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 4. Hypothesis Testing. A hypothesis tester (hypo tester) views the resolution as a statement or proposition to be disproven. The resolution takes on some of the characteristics of a scientific hypothesis, and it is the job of the negative to disprove the hypothesis in this instance.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 4. Hypothesis Testing. a. The affirmative must present a plan that embodies the resolution. If the resolution is a hypothesis, the affirmative’s job is providing warrants that support that hypothesis. b. Realize that the affirmative can present more than one warrant that supports the resolutional hypothesis. That means multiple advantages, and justifies multiple plans or examples of the resolution.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 4. Hypothesis Testing. c. “Presumption, ” if such a thing ever exists, shifts to the affirmative after the 1 AC. d. The negative’s job is disproving the hypothesis, through any means necessary. Conditional arguments, contradictory arguments, frameworks, resolutional flaws, are all legitimate methods by which to disprove the hypothesis (resolution).

Varsity Judge Adaptation 4. Hypothesis Testing. e. The negative may demand that the affirmative defend or justify the entire hypothesis, the “whole resolution. ” Since it is a hypothesis, it must be defended in its entirety or it fails the test. Such an argument could justify counter-warrants (although I wouldn’t recommend them) by the negative, but also justify additional warrants (plans or cases) by the affirmative.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 5. Quality of Argument. This judge is more interested in the arguments themselves. Are they logically constructed, do they have good evidence supporting them, do their conclusions follow from previous arguments? This is not simply “the better debating” paradigm, although that is part of it.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 5. Quality of Argument. a. Read their judging philosophy and ask as many questions about their paradigm as time or the judge permits. b. Run fewer, better arguments. Well-constructed arguments supported by solid evidence will increase your chances of winning. This judge does not want to hear lots of junk arguments. c. Be especially clear in your final rebuttal. Explain why your arguments are better than the other team’s arguments, and why that means you win the round.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 6. Bus Driver, Parent or Never Judged Before. At the Varsity policy level, you will hopefully not encounter this type of judge. If you do encounter such a judge, you must deal with it, because that judge will decide the outcome of your next round. a. Go extra slow in every speech. b. Run only one advantage on the affirmative.

Varsity Judge Adaptation 6. Bus Driver, Parent or Never Judged Before. c. On the negative, run a few good case arguments and one disadvantage or counterplan. Do not run Topicality, theory or kritiks. d. Do not use debate jargon; be nice to the other team and courteous to the judge. e. Try to explain the round in terms of “real-world” arguments.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Interpersonally Remember that each judge is a person. Debating a few rounds in front of a judge is not enough to get to know that judge, or to be able to make judgments on his or her intelligence, politics, honesty or personality. Just as you wouldn’t want a judge (or debater) to make such judgments about you, don’t make them about the judge. There a few things you can do to get to know and/or get along with the judges you encounter in Varsity policy debate.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Interpersonally 1. Talk to the judge outside of the round. Ask them what you can do to get better or if they have any constructive criticism. You may learn that a particular judge doesn’t “have it out for you” like you believed.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Interpersonally 2. Talk to the judge about stuff other than debate. You may be surprised to learn that Varsity policy debate judges have interests outside of debate. Many judges like sports (or even sports entertainment), movies, politics, news and current events. Some judges are married and have families, including children. Others have pets. Many judges have good stories or interesting life experiences. You may even find that you have some things in common with that judge.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Interpersonally 3. Realize that judges have bad days or other things going on in their lives. In the round, a judge may be distracted. A judge may react more harshly, or make more charged comments, than you would like. It is not always about you. A judge with a seriously ill child, or with a car about to break down, or is getting sued, may react to you in a manner that you don’t understand. Be sympathetic. Give the judge the benefit of the doubt.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Interpersonally 4. Judges make mistakes. Occasionally, they make bad decisions. It happens outside of the debate world also. Court judges, referees and umpires, bosses or supervisors, parents, friends and siblings all sometimes make bad decisions. Sometimes that affects you. OK, so a judge blew a decision and gave you the loss—get over it. It will happen again to you in other areas of your life at some point. If you talk to a judge later on, they may even admit their mistake to you.

Varsity Judge Adaptation Interpersonally 5. Realize that sometimes a judge is, both as a judge and as a person, just a jerk. You will encounter them in life as well as in debate. Make the best of the situation, and remember that you won’t have to deal with that debate judge for the rest of your life.