Tsushima,+Jyoshu

Judging is a responsibility. We conduct these debates not only for competition, but more importantly for challenging students’ critical thinking and encouraging them to be mature adults.

The first responsibility of a judge is organizing and conducting a debate. Each debate is structured by specific guidelines that have been well thought and formulated towards the objective of fair debating. If judges have a commitment to promoting fair debate, they must maintain timing, space, and mannerisms as described by the guidelines. Since we also expect debaters to commit to fairness, they are also expected to uphold these guidelines. Should they break them, a judge is then responsible for enforcing the guidelines to ensure fairness is maintained for all debaters. Treating each other with fairness is also to treat each other with respect, for in the practice of fairness we recognize the quality of each other’s actions in the light of our own. It is reasonable to think of the compliance of rules as a lesson that teaches debaters to practice fairness and respect, which will hopefully lead them to have a mind for both even outside of debate.

Secondly, the judging of arguments must be done only in comparison of the debaters’ arguments, not in comparison to a judge’s argument. The purpose of debate is for student debaters to engage one another through constructive argument to prove who has the most valid argument. Debaters are not testing their arguments against the judges, but against each other, therefore validity arises through the dialogue between debaters. Even if the argument of one debater is considered weak by a judge, if the competing debaters are unable to surmount or undermine such an argument, then that argument holds greater validity in context of the debate. If a judge has a criticism towards a debater’s argument that was not addressed by competing debaters, that criticism must be withheld from determining which debaters deserve what credit. Allowing such criticisms to be a criteria in judging would be gravely inappropriate since debaters are unable to respond to the unspoken criticisms of judges. Minimizing the influence of silent criticisms and biases is the virtue of good judging. Judges are not present to promote their perspectives of issues by supporting the debater who’s argument most closely resembles their own, but to promote the human ability of critical thought and expression. The best debater should be selected upon the virtues of strong logic, articulate speech, progressive criticism, and good manners. School debates are for growing the political abilities of students, not for providing a venue of political expression for judges.

Similar to judging debate, I have experience judging Kendo, which can be described as Japanese fencing. There are certain attributes from judging Kendo that appear in judging debates. As a Kendo judge, I am responsible for declaring which competitor scored or fouled, conducting the timing of matches, and managing unexpected problems. Judging when to give out points is not always clear, however there must be a commitment to being decisive, which is just as necessary in judging the arguments of debaters. It will not always be clear if a debater’s argument is effective enough to counter his opponent’s, however I must take the responsibility in making that judgment. Occasionally I will make bad judgments. I do not know of a judge who hasn’t. What is important is that I accept the judgments I make, and that I reflect upon the reasons for those judgments so that I may see how to grow as a judge.