Wisconsin Forensics Daily

Thursday Thing to Read: Evaluating Performances or Contents?

After a long hiatus, the Thursday Thing to Read returns! And this time, the Thursday Thing focuses on forensics and the evaluation of content. (Psst… There’s still some debate commentary too!)

James Madison Memorial’s assistant forensics coach, (and WFD Editor-in-Chief) Nick Bubb begins a work of persuassion on how judges should evaluate rounds of competition. Mr. Bubb’s central thesis is that judges should evaluate performances before they consider the content of a performance.

By exploring a related issue, WFD hopes to continue the healthy dialog that has started with the WFD Poll on category reduction. Click “continue reading” below to read the text of the column.

One of the first stories I ever heard about extemporaneous speaking came from Jeff Billings, the last brother in the very talented family from Sheboygan South. He talked about a round where he drew a question on the Americans with Disabilities Act and prepared a speech that was rather critical of that particular piece of legislation. Jeff walked into the round completely prepared to give this speech, until he realized that his judge was in a wheel chair. Billings completely rewrote his speech on the fly, to adapt to a judge who probably was not in favor of the response that he had prepared. The story is a humorous one, but it underscores an important question. What is the appropriate roll of content-based adjudication in forensics?

This article will attempt to find a place for content-based adjudication. By looking at the numerical power of a judge in forensics, the strategic power of debate judge, and finally, thinking more broadly about the process of evaluation, we can see that content-evaluation ought to be a secondary judging criterion.

Before beginning, some definitions must be given. Content based adjudication has to do with the subject of persuasion, rather than the mode. Content based adjudication appears in all forms of forensics. In debate content adjudication can occur in both general and in specific scales. For example, “I don’t like kritiks” or more specifically, “I don’t like Bush Good disadvantages.” Similar adjudication occurs in forensics. In HI, “This piece isn’t funny, it’s merely amusing.” And in DI, “This piece isn’t dramatic.” And most prevalently, in Extemp. and Oratory, where speakers are called to take a stand. In extemp, where topics are usually politically charged, judges may not be able to separate their personal biases from an evaluation of the speech. A speaker responding to “Should President Bush be censured?” might be caught in catch-22, not knowing if their judge is in favor or support of a resolution for censure. Similarly, an Oratory may face problems where a judge flat out does not agree with his/her thesis. Content adjudication, is not just limited to topics of a political nature. They can also be held to other standards. The comments under HI and DI illustrate this point. HI’s and DI’s can be held to a standard of “is it funny?” and “is it dramatic?” which are both highly individual subjective questions. Other standards, such as decency, limited profanity, and limited blasphemy (or perceived blasphemy, I’ll leave that decision to judge) are often frequently used. Beyond that, there are perceived standards created by the number of rules our categories have. Does poetry have to be rhythmic, rhyming, or non-narrative? These are just many of the methods of evaluating content, rather than evaluating performance.

There are three reasons then, we ought to use content evaluations as secondary concerns.

First, ranks lowered to an extreme degree in speech (and interp) competitions because of content evaluations impede a student’s ability to advance into power rounds. In many categories, the difference between getting a 3 and a 4 or 5 is the difference between clearing and not – one poor evaluation prevents a student from succeeding. This makes it increasingly more important that speakers be evaluated on their performance, rather than the content of their performance. Consider a student in prose, who articulates the line of frustrated, angry character: “God-Damnit.” The WFCA critiques allow for judges to lower the ranks of individual students for the use of profanity, but this is material in the script. Should this student be given a 5? Perhaps. It’s entirely possible that their entire performance may have warranted a five. Assuming the student’s performance is one of the better ones in the round, this appears to be unjustifiable. A lowered rank seems more appropriate. Perhaps a 2 or a 3 should be given to the student because of their content, but a 4 or a 5 hardly seems justified. In order to make adjudication more fair, we need to recognize that a single person not enjoying the content dooms the student if content is allowed as a primary evaluation criterion.

Second, content based evaluations take away strategic options for debaters making rounds more difficult than they need to be. Judges who refuse to hear certain arguments, certain kinds of arguments, or evaluate debate rounds based on who argues the side of the resolution that they like better make debates virtually impossible for debaters to win. The competition and performance is no longer in the hands of the competitor but is in the minds of the judges – do they like you and your arguments or not?

Third, from a broader evaluation perspective we need to look at content as a secondary criterion. If we want our students to truly learn from this activity, then they cannot perceive evaluations as simply a subjective “they liked me” or “they did not like me.” I have lost track of how many times students complain to me about content evaluations. A content evaluation distracts a student from his or her performance and leaves them little to improve upon. This same idea informs conceptions of fairness and respect for our activity. If we want our students to perceive our competition as fair, and respect the judges who give up so much time to this activity, we have to place content evaluations after performative ones. Forensics, then boils down to a competition of personal preferences, and every student who writes an oratory about how to get the Chicago Cubs a World Series championship, would receive a one from me. .

Conclusions – Consider Counter Arguments

I don’t contend that content evaluations aren’t need. On the other hand, content evaluations are often needed. “Who’s funnier?” seems to be a great secondary criterion for HI, given that all other things are equal. (And so on for other categories). My argument is that content based evaluation occur only after we’ve evaluated based on performances.

I do understand that often times this can be difficult, but judges most of the time can make this line clearer by making by thinking about evaluations as choice between high ranks, rather than a choice between a high rank (1 or 2) or an automatic low rank (4 or 5).

Using content as a secondary evaluation criterion does not mean that judges ought to abandon critical evaluations. For example, if students are miss warrants in arguments, have poor phrasing or word choice in speeches, or deliver lines awkwardly, these are errors in the method of performance rather than the subject of their performance.

In closing, judge the performance/debate/speech before you judge the selection.

Posted in Columns, Thursday Thing To Read |