3 ms·

This is often referred to as "spewing." It is common for contestants to ask a judge about the judge's preferences before they actually begin the debate. Some wi

This is often referred to as "spewing." It is common for contestants to ask a judge about the judge's preferences before they actually begin the debate. Some will specifically ask about the judge's attitude regarding spewing. It is also very common for debates to be judged by people who are very inexperienced in debate. A single weekend tournament can involve hundreds of rounds of debate, many dozens happening simultaneously. So a tournament can require several dozen judges. These judges are often volunteers recruited by the hosting school. They could be parents, teachers, janitors, the lunch lady, bus drivers, you name it. In such situations, the judges might get a 5 minute overview of what they are supposed to know, then they are handed a ballot that is "self-explanatory" (not). If you spew to a judge like that, their eyes will glaze over and they will mark you down. But even if they don't, spewing won't help you because the judges don't know how to "flow" a debate to track all the arguments made, countered, etc. And they don't know they are supposed to reward non-rebutted arguments anyway. So, spewing is really only a valuable technique when you are in front of a judge you know to be competent. This is a minority of all debates. So you have to be prepared to go at a normal speed, which requires a completely different strategy. And you will use those strategies so much more often that they become your bread and butter. Unless you play on the national circuit. Then you can expect sharp judges.

Bluestrike2 9y ago
Most every debater will prepare multiple versions of their cases and other arguments to give them the flexibility to deal with widely varying judge paradigms. It can be as simple as not presenting certain cards (evidence) and arguments to accommodate slower speeds or avoiding entire types of arguments (that's especially common when you're the negative with a wide variety of positions prepared). For major tournaments, you'll either know about a judge ahead of time or will hear them lay out their paradigms and preferences at the beginning of the round. And even then, different things ("tabula rasa," or a tab paradigm being a great example) can mean very different things to different people. You can't really avoid lay judges (those with no exposure to the debate community, who tend to default to a more appearance-oriented paradigm), but you can adapt to a degree. The big reason why most debaters tend to dislike debating in front of lay judges is that their ballot decisions can often seem arbitrary. You may ask about their judging philosophy, but even if they provide one, there's no guarantee that they'll actually stick to it. Not because they're "dumb" or "don't understand," but because it's actually a really hard question to answer. It involves a lot of very specific self-reflection that's radically different than what most are used to. Even experienced judges tend to get it wrong, or fall victim to self-delusion. Experience is what helps a judge learn to know themselves (as a judge).
vacri 9y ago
It seems weird that the good judges will reward you for poor behaviour and the poor judges won't.

Bluestrike2 9y ago

Most every debater will prepare multiple versions of their cases and other arguments to give them the flexibility to deal with widely varying judge paradigms. It can be as simple as not presenting certain cards (evidence) and arguments to accommodate slower speeds or avoiding entire types of arguments (that's especially common when you're the negative with a wide variety of positions prepared). For major tournaments, you'll either know about a judge ahead of time or will hear them lay out their paradigms and preferences at the beginning of the round. And even then, different things ("tabula rasa," or a tab paradigm being a great example) can mean very different things to different people. You can't really avoid lay judges (those with no exposure to the debate community, who tend to default to a more appearance-oriented paradigm), but you can adapt to a degree. The big reason why most debaters tend to dislike debating in front of lay judges is that their ballot decisions can often seem arbitrary. You may ask about their judging philosophy, but even if they provide one, there's no guarantee that they'll actually stick to it. Not because they're "dumb" or "don't understand," but because it's actually a really hard question to answer. It involves a lot of very specific self-reflection that's radically different than what most are used to. Even experienced judges tend to get it wrong, or fall victim to self-delusion. Experience is what helps a judge learn to know themselves (as a judge).

vacri 9y ago

It seems weird that the good judges will reward you for poor behaviour and the poor judges won't.