ERIC Number: ED366040
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1993-Nov
Reference Count: N/A
Judge Adaptation from a Debater's Perspective.
Many topics have been discussed over the lifespan of CEDA (Cross Examination Debate Association) debate, but the topic of judge adaptation (debaters adapting to each judge) is consistently ignored. Lay judges normally do not comprehend the debate process. To many debaters, lay judges are the most difficult to adapt to. The biggest problem with using lay judges is the lack of a predetermined criterion to determine the winner. Inconsistency in judging philosophies is not new and is largely responsible for the inconsistent records of debate teams. Some judges have an "anything goes" attitude towards judging debate rounds. These judges, often referred to as "tabula rasa," should rethink their ways. Without any proper criteria, debaters are forced to do what they feel is necessary to win the round. Tabula rasa judges give the debaters the freedom to be undisciplined and make it more difficult for debaters to adapt to the judges. Debaters face a more difficult challenge when they break to "out rounds." One way for everyone to have a well-defined philosophy, one that debaters can know exactly, is for judges to complete a questionnaire on such topics as what the judge considers a voting issue, what he/she is looking for in a debate round and from debaters, and where they stand on specific topics. Debaters would be better off than they are now if lay judges were equipped with basic vocabulary, structure, a brief background of debate, and clear criteria to determine the winner of the round. (A sample questionnaire is attached.) (RS)
Publication Type: Speeches/Meeting Papers; Opinion Papers
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers: Cross Examination Debate Association; Debate Tournaments
Note: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (79th, Miami Beach, FL, November 18-21, 1993).