Paradigms and Principles: Must arguments be on the flow?
Today I would like to discuss the following question:
A. Should judges require that an argument be noted on the flow in order to vote on it?
A common refrain by judges in paradigms and oral critiques is “I can’t vote for it unless it is clearly on my flow.” Similarly, debaters often remind judges after their opponent has employed what they perceive to be a blip spread, “Don’t let them explain the argument in the next speech. If it’s not on your flow, don’t vote for it.”
Proponents of this requirement offer several justifications. First, it seems to check the practice of obfuscating the meaning of an argument and then subsequently explaining it more clearly and claiming that one’s opponent did not adequately respond. Only voting for arguments that are complete on one’s flow presumptively makes it easier to resolve this situation. The judge knows how much of the argument was initially explained with sufficient clarity to make it on the flow, and therefore knows how much of the subsequent articulation is new. Second, it seems to check the practice of blip spreading. This is obviously related to the first advantage because a common tactic for the blip-spreader is extending incomplete or under-explained arguments. In addition to making adjudication presumptively fairer, it also encourages students to develop arguments in more depth and to speak more clearly. Third, it is a check on intervention. Instead of judges trying to resolve issues in the debate by racking their brains about the minutiae of what was said at that particular point on the flow, they can simply reference the flow to find whether a claim, warrant, and impact for each argument was offered with sufficient clarity for it to count in the round.
On the other hand, there are several reasons why this requirement is problematic. First, judges flow at different rates and in different ways. It is difficult if not impossible for debaters to know what an appropriate speed and level of clarity is for each judge. There is a reasonable leeway when judges employ their subjective judgments about what constitutes sufficient clarity as opposed to the formal requirement that an argument’s details be noted specifically on the flow. Second, what a judge is able to flow is not a very good proxy for what he or she understands. Often we don’t understand things written on the flow (e.g. we only tracked a fragment of the argument), and just as often we understand things that may not be sufficiently noted on the flow (e.g. a commonly used card may be noted by name only). In fact, trying to write down every argument in sufficient detail is often an impediment to effective understanding of the round. Debate is about arguments, and the flow is a tool to help us keep track of them. As a general rule “flow” judging helps us focus on the residual quality of the argument rather than a vague sense of who “persuaded” more effectively. But in this case it may well be pointless formalism – too much focus on the instrument rather than its underlying purpose.
So, should judges require that the details of an argument be noted on their flows before they are willing to vote on that argument, or is a subjective determination of what was sufficiently clear preferable?
Tagged judging, Judging Paradigms, paradigms
About Adam Torson
Adam Torson debated at Fargo South High School. He is a graduate of the University of Minnesota and has a J.D. from Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota. From 2004-2009 he was the director of debate at Hopkins High School (MN). He is currently an assistant coach at Harvard-Westlake (CA). Adam is also a curriculum director at Victory Briefs Institute and is the Editor of our VB topic analysis books and debate textbooks.
View all posts by Adam Torson →
Paradigms and Principles: Must arguments be on the flow?
Today I would like to discuss the following question:
A. Should judges require that an argument be noted on the flow in order to vote on it?
A common refrain by judges in paradigms and oral critiques is “I can’t vote for it unless it is clearly on my flow.” Similarly, debaters often remind judges after their opponent has employed what they perceive to be a blip spread, “Don’t let them explain the argument in the next speech. If it’s not on your flow, don’t vote for it.”
Proponents of this requirement offer several justifications. First, it seems to check the practice of obfuscating the meaning of an argument and then subsequently explaining it more clearly and claiming that one’s opponent did not adequately respond. Only voting for arguments that are complete on one’s flow presumptively makes it easier to resolve this situation. The judge knows how much of the argument was initially explained with sufficient clarity to make it on the flow, and therefore knows how much of the subsequent articulation is new. Second, it seems to check the practice of blip spreading. This is obviously related to the first advantage because a common tactic for the blip-spreader is extending incomplete or under-explained arguments. In addition to making adjudication presumptively fairer, it also encourages students to develop arguments in more depth and to speak more clearly. Third, it is a check on intervention. Instead of judges trying to resolve issues in the debate by racking their brains about the minutiae of what was said at that particular point on the flow, they can simply reference the flow to find whether a claim, warrant, and impact for each argument was offered with sufficient clarity for it to count in the round.
On the other hand, there are several reasons why this requirement is problematic. First, judges flow at different rates and in different ways. It is difficult if not impossible for debaters to know what an appropriate speed and level of clarity is for each judge. There is a reasonable leeway when judges employ their subjective judgments about what constitutes sufficient clarity as opposed to the formal requirement that an argument’s details be noted specifically on the flow. Second, what a judge is able to flow is not a very good proxy for what he or she understands. Often we don’t understand things written on the flow (e.g. we only tracked a fragment of the argument), and just as often we understand things that may not be sufficiently noted on the flow (e.g. a commonly used card may be noted by name only). In fact, trying to write down every argument in sufficient detail is often an impediment to effective understanding of the round. Debate is about arguments, and the flow is a tool to help us keep track of them. As a general rule “flow” judging helps us focus on the residual quality of the argument rather than a vague sense of who “persuaded” more effectively. But in this case it may well be pointless formalism – too much focus on the instrument rather than its underlying purpose.
So, should judges require that the details of an argument be noted on their flows before they are willing to vote on that argument, or is a subjective determination of what was sufficiently clear preferable?
Tagged judging, Judging Paradigms, paradigms