In the Northeastern US we are having a bit of trouble, in my opinion, with judge diversity in elimination debates. I think that an important element of a good debate regimen is having to persuade a wide and varied group of people as opposed to having the convenience of targeting your arguments for specific types of people or even for specific individuals.
Here are some arguments from Paul Gross of the University of Vermont in favor of allowing debaters who did not break as judges in elimination rounds. I find this issue quite interesting and totally unresolved in my mind. I think it contains some elements of both issues – too much variety and at the same time too much specific targeting. But let me know what you think. We should have a wide and detailed debate about this idea.
Hi Steve,
It’s my view that debaters who reach elimination rounds, but are eliminated before the final round, should be added to the pool of judges.
1) Elimination rounds, uniquely, benefit from an excellent panel of judges. Though it is not always the case, elimination rounds tend to be closer, more complicated debates that get decided based on small issues–the sorts of debates where the 2nd and 3rd might be separated by only a speaker point. Also, unlike in preliminary rounds, debaters do not have the opportunity to recover from a 3rd place they might not have deserved. For these two reasons, decisions in elimination rounds are especially tricky and important and would benefit from having the best variety of judges on the panel.
2) Strong debaters tend to make strong judges. Again, this is not always the case, but oftentimes those debaters who perform well at the activity (as evidenced by their reaching the elimination rounds) benefit from the perspective of being a current competitor and being familiar with the ever evolving norms and standards of the activity, which is an important (but certainly not the only) lens through which to view the debate. Also, if you look at the many of the most respected judges around the world in this format, they tend to be recently graduated or even current debaters. (Chris Croke from Sydney and Doug Cochran from Cambridge, for example, were high ranking judges at Worlds 2009 and 2010, respectively). Seeing this trend, and recognizing that elimination rounds require strong panels of judges, it makes sense to include current strong debaters in the pool. Of course, there is no obligation to include all debaters who fall out before the final round in the pool. Indeed, it is likely that debaters who are also strong judges will emerge and that debaters who feel less comfortable judging will recuse themselves anyway.
3) For the most part, debate communities are civil, friendly, and compassionate groups of people. Undoubtedly, debaters who lose rounds sometimes feel resentment towards the teams that beat them immediately after the round. However, typically this resentment is short-lived, as debaters are likely to get another chance to face each other only a few weeks later and may even socialize that very evening. Especially in a small community, like our own in the Northeast, it is probably even the case that almost all top performing teams have both won and lost against most other teams who are likely to reach elimination rounds. Partially for these reasons, it seems unlikely to me that debaters will hold grudges or make unfair decisions based on the results of previous debates they may have had with the competitors that they are now judging. Furthermore, if this practice became the norm, there would be an additional deterrent against making unfair or biased decisions, namely that you might be judged in an elimination round by one of these debaters next tournament. If, in fact, there were some kind of extreme circumstance where it was likely that a debater could not make a decision fairly, that debater could recuse herself or be recused at the behest of the chief adjudicator.
Paul
Comments
2 responses to “Eliminated Debaters as Adjudicators?”
I can see the benefit on paper of doing this. I was DCA at a tournament where a former world champion was debating with a fresher and just missed the break. They would have been a great addition to the judging pool but we could not use them. However that said you would generally expect that the best debaters would be in the elimination rounds. Therefore if it is a small tournament (say 20 teams) you will find that half of the speakers will have made the break and the speakers you are left with may not add quality to the judging pool.
Tournaments which are large enough to attract a depth of quality teams that means many potentially good judges will miss the debating break are also tournaments that attract a good depth of quality judges. You need to make sure that breaking as a judge does not become a consolation prize for the 3-4 teams just outside the break. If this happens it reduces the incentive for people to come and judge the whole tournament. Why would you slog through 6-7 preliminary rounds as a judge only to be told we don’t want you in the break because debaters who failed to make the break are still regarded as better judges.
Also for many people adjudication is as competitive as debating. Having been CA or DCA at a number of large tournaments I can tell you the couple hours after the break are a rollercoaster of reactions. You will get some judges coming to you and thanking you for giving them a chance. However you will also get many judges who are angry and extremely disappointed at missing the break. Some take it to extremes and if they were judging a bubble final preliminary round you could not be certain that the judge break will not be a factor in their decision. If they have estimated that they are just hanging onto one of the last slots in the judge break would you trust them to eliminate a team that will probably then push them out of the judge break?
The proposal has some merit but I think it should be a potential option rather than a default option. Add the potential to call up an eliminated debater into the judge break to the arsenal of the adjudication team BUT it should be an exceptional event. If it becomes a regular event then I fear it will have an adverse impact.
This sort of eventuality should be so rare that it seems unwise to even contemplate it. It should be limited to small schools in their first or second year of hosting. A large/national tournament, well, like the professions, adjudication teams should be partly rainmakers, bringing in alumni and others they know who are minimally conflicted against the competing teams and who have a strong track record in not just assessment but also advice.
A judging pool which resembled a speedhump more than a Great Pyramid (and as revealed by notification of such a policy) would be one were I a society president again would pause before sending teams to – especially inexperienced ones. There is a skillset to room chair judges which does not innately adhere to speakers per se –
* the ability to listen to a whole argument rather than watching for a fault to jump on
* the ability to calmly and rationally explain the basis for a decision
* the ability to balance the CA team’s need for a quick result, the competitors’ need for a fair result and the co-judges need to be fairly heard on the result
* the willingness to give pointers to young speakers even when it cuts into drinking time.
To simply say we’ll worry about bulking up on seniors after the break shows both a lack of care for those who don’t break and a structural failure in the size of the tournament, which should not simply predicated on the number of available debate rooms and beds.
Colm and I can speak to this because we came from a small school who grew their tournament because of aggressive recruiting of judges, in part because we valued judges equally with speakers, in part because we attended other schools’ tournaments thus building up a favour bank and because our school put on social events sufficiently attractive that judges volunteered to come.
A policy such as that outlined above would create a policy resembling neither speedhump or pyramid but a distended figure of eight – a small cohort of senior judges who break no matter what, a large number of junior judges who are there because rego rules mandate a minimum number, but a narrow waist representing the midlevel judges on the bubble, who now know they are likely to be superceded even after their school paid rego and they listened to several rounds of varying but sometimes disappointing quality. Many will find something else to do with their weekend.