"The problem of securing competent debate judges is always with us." Though this quote was made in 1917 by Lew Sarett and reiterated by Robert L. Scott in his 1954 paper of the same name, this is still a problem today, when our methods of informational dissemination thoroughly surpass those of past generations. Simply, it should be a lot easier to teach judges how to judge properly, especially after the pandemic, when a lot of materials were moved online. Yet I, and I assume many other debaters, have found that this is not always the case. Despite there being many well-equipped judges, in some circuits, the prevalence of lay judges is cumbersome. Although I imagine this is a problem regardless of the circuit or location, it manifests in a particularly interesting way where I am from: the American South.

As with many parts of the United States, Christian conservatism has somewhat of a grip on older Southerners, but here, people are a bit more... open about it. A funny story I typically tell to back this up is that during a finals round in STOA, a Christian homeschool debate circuit, a judge introduced himself as an insurrectionist because he had participated in the Jan. 6th storming of the Capitol, which is a crazy thing to admit to. And while I was not there for that particular instance, having debated in STOA TP, the number of primitive stock cases that revolved around the "China is a threat to national security" sentiment was very high, and when I first started, I almost never won on neg, partially because I was a bad debater, but also because the judges would, without fail, vote in favor of said cases. And as with a circuit like this, most of the judges were parents with quintessential Southern accents who, per my father, went through no more than 30 minutes of prep the day of tournaments if it were their first time.

Now that I have set the stage for the problem, what is the solution? In my mind, there are really only 2: altering and perhaps extending the process for becoming a judge across circuits, or appeasement.

It is important to note a couple of things, though. 

1. Debate organizations each have their own rules and participants, so it would be near impossible to call for standardization across all of them. 

2. On the other hand, if a volunteer so chooses, there are plenty of free materials to learn online, some of which are required to be a judge for NSDA, though many judges may lack awareness of these resources or the incentive to use them. In fact, incentive may perhaps be the biggest point of conflict, because after all, judges are volunteers doing unpaid work. Typically, parents, it may seem unfair to make all sorts of sacrifices to have children participate in competitions like these, and then, on top of that, be assessed more harshly on the efficacy of your judging. 

3. Not all the judges are extremely inexperienced or biased, as many debate coaches may also end up judging, as well as those who have years of experience. Thus, there is a limit to how particular we can be in sculpting the perfect judges. Plus, in the case of bias and personal ideologies, judges are typically taught to leave them at the door anyway, but they are not always, creating the issue stated before. This is not unique to the South either. At the Harvard Debate Council PF tournament finals 2 years ago, a team won because the judge with the presumably tipping vote said he liked the case that had more scientific elements because he liked "science."

Appeasement, on the other hand, requires a bit of an attentive touch if it is to be done well. We could all, in theory, run very similar AFF cases and craft "America First" neg arguments, but that is not what I am getting at necessarily. What I do is much more along the lines of appeal. And in debate, there is an onus to appeal to an audience, the judge, and it can be important to do so along ideological lines without losing the integrity or textures of an argument. For example, if we were to argue that what is happening in Israel’s occupation of Gaza is wrong, the "liberal" argument may stray along the lines of moral incorrectness, arguing for lives lost among other things, while an argument that might appeal more to a conservative judge might purport that supporting Israel in its conflict is a threat to American hegemony, with tangible economic impacts, and so forth. And to make this even more complex, the biases we encounter are not always of a political nature. Some judges like showy debaters, while others enjoy much substance, which is why it is important to gauge the judge’s reactions to your case and how you are presenting it as the round progresses. No matter the application, this strategy is one I have been using for years now, and while at times it can be a bit shallow, it is effective.

And even further past that, this disposition can sometimes be what makes or breaks an effective communicator, not just in debate, but in life. Whether one wants to be a lawyer, politician, manager, or something else, there will always be those standing on the other side of an issue that need to be appealed to. In debate, since one’s goal is to win, it may seem more effective to act as a salesman concerning a case, focusing on what makes it effective, blending rhetoric and logic to make points for one's own, and hopefully to dock points against others. And while this obviously makes sense, it may forgo an assessment of who one’s audience actually is, which is why it is very important to ask what judges like to see at the beginning of any debate. Though oftentimes their stated philosophies may differ from reality, if you listen to what they say and what they do not, you could have more than a sufficient amount of info to tailor your case accordingly.