How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Lay Judges | Champion Briefs
← Back to Blog

September 24, 2014

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Lay Judges

By Towsif Ahasan

When I debated as a novice, I remember thinking that lay judges were “illegit,” and whenever I was dropped by a lay judge, I could just brush it off as bad judging. I’d just make myself believe that if someone who actually understood debate judged me, they would pick me up, because come on, obviously I was the best. The worst part was that this vicious cycle was reaffirmed by many of the people I talked to; I could tell another debater that I was dropped by an “illegit” lay judge, and they would just nod, agree and sympathize.

These days, when I walk down the hall of a tournament and hear kids bashing lay judges, it makes me irrationally angry and annoyed. My mentality has changed drastically due to experience and observation, and I’ve come to appreciate the unique role that lay judges play in debate. My partner, Jeremy Andreades, explained our change best in last year of debate, remarking that we debated “flow” so rarely that it started to feel out of character, and as a result, our performance improved markedly. We came to a very basic realization that “bad judging” is distinct from lay judging; “bad judges” can be lay or experienced, and often, the worst judges were those who believed they were “flow” but didn’t really understand the flow. We began to realize what a judge really meant when they said they had no preferences or in their RFD simply said “one team was more persuasive.” We realized that instances where a judge made an objectively wrong decision were incredibly rare, with maybe 3 in a year, and the vast majority of rounds lost were because of bad execution, whether that be on the flow or in our persuasiveness. It got to a point where we looked forward to having a lay judge when debating opponents who either didn’t adapt or thought they were above adapting; we knew we had an advantage and we worked to capitalize on it. Our biggest challenges were no longer circuit debaters, but debaters willing to adapt. Lastly, one of the best examples that distinguishes good and bad judging is the performance of Harker CS (Aneesh Chona and Anuj Sharma), one of the most successful teams of all time, at Emory. Not only did they win the tournament, they were approximately half a point from perfect speaker points in every round. Their near perfect success is one example that shows that excellent debate and excellent debaters are recognized almost universally, by lay and flow judges alike.

Beyond just being competent judges, having lay judges brings a plethora of benefits such as forcing students to learn real-world skills that make Public Forum Debate unique, making the event sustainable and inclusive.

Debate, like any community or institution, has its own set of practices and traditions that distinguish it. This can be seen in the jargon (kritiks, disads, dropping rounds, extend Johnson, etc.), as well as through practices like spreading, both of which really only occur in the debate world. For example, many of my friends have stared at me confusedly when I say “The Broncos dropped to the Seahawks.” One side effect of these practices is that they can erode values that don’t coincide with common practices. Essentially, in debate, research, jargon, and technical argumentation have taken priority over clarity, persuasion, and appeal to the average person. This usually happens when people who consider themselves to be flow judges, usually former debaters or coaches, vastly outnumber the number of lay judges in the pool because the alumni judges debated with these values in mind. As a result of this, current debaters that are judged by alumni adapt that mindset to be successful; this creates a cycle where one set of values can completely overtake another. The conclusion of the prioritization of one set of values over another can be seen in Policy debate. This is not a judgment or criticism of Policy debate; I have a deep respect for Policy and the experimental and open environment that policy debate provides. This is simply an observation and is relevant in explaining that Public Forum Debate was created to revitalize aspects of debate that can be absent in LD and Policy.

One of the key benefits of having lay judges is that they allow for a balanced approach to skill development by placing equal emphasis on values like speaking clearly and being well informed. Spitting names, tags, and stats will probably leave a lay judge confused and with a headache; evidence is still important for them, its just not the most important factor. The ability to be persuasive, logical, and frame issues clearly is critical to being able to be consistently successful with lay judges, and Public Forum Debate forces students to develop these skills in order to be competitive. Debaters have to be able to convince people who have a variety of different backgrounds, beliefs, and experiences. Convincing an Asian suburban middle-class father or a Black upper class urban single woman is going to be a uniquely different experience from convincing than former debater #55. At the same time, there will always be some “flow” judges, either as coaches, former debaters, or highly experienced parents, where more intensive research, more jargon, and more unique arguments could be strategic in winning the ballot. Public forum manages to distinguish itself from LD and Policy by maintaining a pool that has both kinds of judges, forcing debaters to develop a diverse set of skills. This unique identity for Public Forum is important because it creates an environment for people who want to develop these key skills.

The second major reason that lay judges are beneficial is that on a structural level, they promote inclusiveness and the sustainability of Public Forum as an event. Having lay judges opens the event up to greater participation by making it easier to start new programs in three basic ways. First, having lay judges means that regular adults and teachers that have little or no experience in debate can be relevant and effective in coaching. Even if they haven’t had experience with circuit practices like jargon or cutting cards, these adults can still teach students common skills like persuasive speaking or how to do basic research, which opens the door to the wide world of debate. Second, students who want to debate on their own or who are coached by mentors with little or no debate experience can be still be successful because an advanced knowledge of the technical side is not required. The qualities that are appealing to lay judges are the same skills that can be learned in many other classrooms or even learned independently or be “natural.” This often isn’t the case with LD or Policy because they require knowledge of the technical side of debate that can only be learned by specific study of debate rather than in English or Social Studies classes. Further, the acceptance of lay judges allow those adults without advanced knowledge of technical debate to still be involved in the event. Maintaining a lay judging pool means that debate alumni can return at any point and still be able to participate and remain relevant. For example, LD debaters from the 80s, when LD resembled PF, might be lost trying to judge today’s rounds filled with theory, kritiks, plans, etc. Having lay judging ensures that Public Forum remains accessible, creating a much larger potential base of people who are likely to support debate in the future because they can still feel relevant and connected to the activity. Allowing parents to judge or observe debates gives them a greater understanding of what their kids do, encouraging parent involvement and support. My friend and former coach Reilly puts it best when he explains that Public Forum Debate acts as an ambassador for debate; it gives it a public image that people can understand and attach to, and this increases support for the activity as a whole.

All of these benefits culminate in the development of real world communication skills for debaters. Being able to communicate clearly and persuasively is among the most requested and valuable skills in the modern workplace. Wherever you work, being able to understand who you’re talking to and how to communicate best with them is an enormous benefit to career potential and ability to advance. Jacob Bollinger, PhD, an analyst and senior data scientist, looked at “the hiring trends of every company and industry in every city in the United States” and explained that “our data reveal that the skills in highest demand across the board are not necessarily specialized skills but fundamentals that apply to many job categories, like customer service and problem solving. Communication skill is in highest demand among employers. That skill tops the list in job postings among categories ranging from laborers, accountants, general and operations managers, and cashiers to software developers, computer systems analysts, and pharmacy technicians.” Second, being forced to advocate topics like single gender schools to a diverse group of people, from a married African American father to a single female Hispanic lawyer, provides a diverse experience. Understanding how people’s backgrounds, experiences, and history shape how they perceive subjects is educational because of the diversity of the real world. Mike Myatt, who trains high level executives in communication skills, explains the benefits writing, “It is the ability to develop a keen external awareness that separates the truly great communicators from those who muddle through their interactions with others. Examine the world's greatest leaders and you'll find them all to be exceptional communicators. They might talk about their ideas, but they do so in a way that also speaks to your emotions and your aspirations.” Being forced to develop strong communication skills, and understanding that is a judge is an enormous boost for the competitive job market.

What I hope you take away from this is that lay judges are not only good judges and good for debaters, but they are critical in making Public Forum Debate inclusive and sustainable. Keeping debate alive and viable into the future requires us to not only tolerate, but to embrace lay judging and to re-orient our community from one that often vilifies lay judges to one that acknowledges their critical importance to debate as a whole.

Works Cited

Bollinger, Jacob. “The most sought-after job categories and skills for 2014.” Bright. 2014. Web. 13 March 2014. Retrieved from http://www.bright.com/static/v3/img/labs/content/The_Most_Sought_After_Job_Categories_and_Skills_for_2014.pdf.

Myatt, Mike. “10 Communication Secrets of Great Leaders.” Forbes. 4 April 2012. Web. 13 March 2014. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2012/04/04/10-communication-secrets-of-great-leaders/.