Hall,+Sherry

Sherry Hall, Harvard, Judging Philosophy, East Region Judged at GA State, Vermont, KY, Wake,

Recently, when judging at a high school tournament, one of the debaters asked me about my judge paradigm. I said that I viewed my role as a critic of argument. He looked puzzled and asked, "Does that mean you are good for the kritik or bad?" Unfortunately, for more and more debaters the answer to this question seems to be the only one that matters in assessing judge quality.

To say that I view my role as a debate judge as a "critic of argument" means that I think the closest analogy to what I do when I judge rounds, is act as an educator grading a class presentation. But Collegiate debate is not just an educational activity, it is also a competitive activity. Therefore, the judge has the additional role of acting as a "referee" or official who keeps time, and resolves disputes over the "rules". In resolving debates that focus on the "rules" - is topicality a voting issue, are PICs legitimate, must the negative provide an alternative - I tend to evaluate those questions based on the impact that they have on education and competitive equity.

I consider clash against the opponent’s ideas as one of the most important standards by which to evaluate whether or not a particular argument or practice is “good” or “bad” for debate. I do think that for the activity to continue to progress, creativity in arguments and debating styles is a good thing that should be encouraged. I do think that teams which are attempting innovations, such as the “performance is all that matters” strategy, will do better with me if the debaters can isolate what standards I should use to evaluate rounds in this new way, and/or what ground is left to the other team. A strategy or performance that leaves nothing for the other team to respond to undermines the goal of competitive equity.

I have a few theoretical preferences, though none is so strong that I cannot be convinced to set it aside despite the arguments in the round. I will list some of these preferences, but the debaters should keep in mind, that these issues still need to be argued, and the side that plays into my preferences, still needs to articulate the reasons why a particular argument should be accepted or rejected. 1. I strongly believe that if asked, the affirmative must specify who does the plan. The fact that the topic does not lock the affirmative into a particular actor, means that the affirmative gets to choose. The whole purpose of having a debate where the negative can clash meaningfully with the affirmative case is lost, if the affirmative can say what their plan does after they have heard the negative strategy. 2. I think that plan inclusive counterplans are bad for the goal of promoting meaningful clash. I coach my teams to run them. I write them. I vote for them every weekend. I am partial to the arguments against them though, and will vote on them. 3. Almost all negative teams these days reflexively declare that the counterplan is conditional. I have seen many rounds this year where that unthinking choice has cost the neg the round. If you have a legitimate reason for your arguments to be conditional and you are prepared to defend it, go for it, but I think it is a bad idea to say that your arguments are conditional when they don’t need to be – you just open yourself up to more ways to lose. My preference is against conditionality. For the same reason that I think the affirmative has to say what their plan does for the negative to meaningfully clash with that plan, the affirmative needs to know what their plan and case is being compared to, in order to effectively clash with the negative’s arguments. It is not enough that the negative will pick one strategy by the end of the round, because too much time has been wasted on arguments that are irrelevant. More importantly, the presence of a counterplan in the round changes how the affirmative answers disadvantages and case arguments. If the negative can drop the counterplan later in the round, the affirmative cannot go back and re-give the 2AC. I think that the debate is better if both sides clearly stake out their ground and their positions from the beginning and the rest of the debate focuses on which is better.

In addition to the theoretical preferences, I do have some views regarding decorum in the round. 1. As I mentioned above, I view myself as an educator and consider the debate round to be a “learning environment”. I believe that both basic civil rights law, as articulated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent state laws, as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment. I am inclined to disallow language and performances that would be considered harassment in a regular class-room setting. I have no problem with discussions that include sexual issues, but if the incorporation of pornography, sexual simulation, sexual threats against the other team, nudity, etc., creates a hostile environment for the other participants in the round, then it should not be presented. If you think your debate performance potentially crosses the line and could constitute sexual and/or racial harassment, your safest bet is to warn the other team before the round and ask if they have any objections. I consider a request from the opposing team or me to not use explicit language/material/performance to be a signal of their/my discomfort and deserving of your respect. I view the intentional decision to create a hostile environment without respecting the feelings of the opposing team to be an unethical practice that will be treated the same way as other ethical violations such as fabricating evidence – loss and zero speaker points. 2. I detest rudeness, especially in cross-examination, or in comments directed at one’s opponents. 3. Anytime that someone refers to a male debater’s arguments as “she said” or a female’s arguments as “he said” I notice it, and it distracts me from the substance of the argument. I am not sure that I could be convinced that this is a voting issue. I usually will shout out the correction. If the practice seems flagrant, I will give lower speaker points. I am also sensitive to use of the generic “he”, especially when debaters are speaking about what “the judge” should do with a specific argument in the round. Whether or not a particular round is judged by a male or a female, I take offense at having “the debate judge” referred to as “he.” Again, I am not sure that I would be convinced that this is a voting issue, since I have never heard a round in which anyone has attempted to do that. I do think that some people may be taking this concern to an extreme. I do not think that a debater who reads a card with the word “blackmail” in it, or reads cards from Kant, is automatically branded a racist or sexist and should therefore be punished with a loss or lower points.