In Defense of the Lay Judge

"Interesting how fast you were able to get speech together on this subject. Good job."

That was all my district semis judge wrote, before giving me a 6, shooting my dreams of qualifying to nationals from the sky. I was left speaking to my coach - and told the news. My judge had confused speaking points and ranks and assumed that a 6 was the best. A spot I rightfully earned was robbed from me by a judge who just didn’t know how debate works. 

Speech and debaters often look down upon "lay" judges. Viewed as biased, unfair, and unqualified to critique their event, I've seen many call for restrictions on what they can judge. Many would prefer that they simply weren't a part of speech and debate at all. Yet the worth of lay judges cannot be overstated. Debaters recognize them as unavoidable to keep debate alive. This thought devalues what lay judges provide - far more than padding out ballots. The views they provide make them not just needed but wanted.

There is no speech without lay judges. There simply aren't enough coaches, alumni and varsity to run any large-scale tournament. Yet regardless of their necessity, lay judges are still valuable. Here in Wyoming, PF finals for the Single Use Plastics Resolution at a local were judged by environmental scientists. I’ve given speeches on ESL students in schools to a woman PHD in linguistics, who’s thesis was written on ESL students in schools. Lay judges may not know about things like the exact amount of prep time given in Policy, but ignoring their professional experience and knowledge leaves out the best of debate.

But what about lay judges with no professional insight? After all, not every name on Tab will be that of a professional economist. But even here, lay judges have their palace. It is no secret that Speech and debate is a subjective event. There are no goals we can count - it all comes down to perception. Like art, there are some objective metrics we can judge by, as tech judges will be sticklers too - but beauty is in the eye of the beholder - as truth judges will always remind us of. But all too often I see competitors and coaches, in both speech and debates, ignore this fact. A common critique of lay judges is that they have no understanding of the metrics of which events should be scored on, they purely vote for perceptual dominance. These critics forget that there is no scorecard. What a judge prefers will bounce back and forth. Paradigms exist to help competitors navigate them, as they are expected to. Is it unfair then, for forensics to be expected to work with the perspective of someone to whom, this is all new?The answer is no. 

All too often I see competitors rush to condemn lay judges for giving a loss, as they didn’t address this or consider this. The same competitors turn around and believe that a win was earned due to the amount of subpoints unaddressed, or the link that wasn’t properly developed. Debaters are taught to use any argument, run any K, and shell their debates with theory in the name of victory. No consequence is too important to be disregarded, no unsportsmanlike conduct that cannot be dived to the lows of. After all, so long as the flow, well, flows, to their side, they win. The same judges who judge purely by tallying contentions are just as bad as lay judges who tally the number of stutters. In ignoring the value and impact these issues pose, debate is robbed of its relevance and importance.  

My Coach likes to split speech and debate 50-50. Not between speech/debate, or novice/varsity; between the two reasons that people take up this activity in the first place: competition, and advocacy. Those who love competition are here for the love of the game: the thrill of a heated crossfire, the rush of Extemp prep, and the satisfaction of a shiny trophy awarding a performance well done. Advocacy debaters are there for a different reason; rather than an award, they want to learn either the skills to advocate for themselves in their daily lives or for others on a broad scale now and in the future. If they’re policy kids, they mean a lawyer. With Congress kids, it's self-explanatory. Both aspects are important - competition keeps the events thriving, and advocacy makes them special. The issue comes up when the two become disconnected. The severance caused by a lack of lay judges lets debaters forget about the people who the issues we discuss impact daily.  It is easy to scream and wave around the impacts of 5% inflation in policy debate, but for lay judges, these topics are much more than resolutions on a whiteboard. The policies we discuss are what could decide whether their lives will be better or worse, whether they will be happy to raise their children in a world that is in constant motion.  

At a local just last month, tired out from my grand total of 4 rounds, I decided to do a bit of judge stalking. It was during this that I learned that, during one of my speeches about social programs and healthcare, one of my judges had an open GoFundMe to fund treatment for her best friend, who was recently in a car crash. 

It is criminally easy for us, as high schoolers from generally well-off families, who’ve never had to pay taxes, who don’t have to buy homes, to talk about inflation despite never having managed a budget for a family. No matter what, we cannot forget that we are never the ones footing the bill for the impact we are oh so eager to sacrifice on the altar in the name of getting more than just a One Clap. That is where the importance of lay judges comes in - they serve as a reminder, often a brutal one, of who debate is about - the people. The NSDA does not come up with topics out of a hat. They look at the events happening in the world that weigh on the hearts and minds of Americans. I have watched a veteran who served in Afghanistan judge the 2024 Jan-Feb LD topic. I have watched a mother pinching pennies to get her child through college judging the PF Nov-December 2023 topic. It is morally abhorrent to disqualify these people, whose views on current events are as valuable as ours in this democracy, for simply “not having the experience.” Yes, these people don’t have the experience with debate - for they are all too familiar with its impacts. Without lays on the ballot - debate becomes elitist, then disconnected, then irrelevant. Consider how Public Forum debate was designed specifically to combat this. Designed by the billionaire founder of CNN, Ted Turner, PF was meant to give a reprieve from the nonsensical  - where the expert economist could meet with Dave, the guy working a 9-5 for state farm, and go back and forth to expose and refurbish the ideas and values each side present - and be able to decide what was ultimately the best choice. But as time has progressed, PF has increasingly become more disconnected. In 2021, for the first time a PF team won the TOC using a Kritik. Debate seems to constantly shift towards disconnect. Lay judges serve as a perfect counter to this. Having a person in the room who effectively acts as a speed bump sounds bad on paper, but forcing debate to be slow, and most importantly, to make their arguments reasonable, simple, and relevant preserves the spirit of debate as an everyman's activity. Debate and political discussion are as much a part of our democracy as voting is.  Ensuring that everyone is included in our thoughts about global issues is the most important yet neglected part of debate - a part that Lay judges maintain.  

I am of course, not arguing for uneducated judging. It would be nice to not have to explain what an “Extemporaneous Speaking” is to someone’s grandma at every tournament. But the idea that a judge who has no clue about the layers of jargon speech seems to inevitably create is harmful to us is false.

During our club's senior award night - our coach gave his most memorable praise to - not our numerous 4-time national qualifiers, but to a regular policy debater - whose W-L record was not something to be envious of. He praised, how, in a world dominated by blown-up (figuratively and literally) impacts - he was the only one to recognize and value the lives he weighed - not viewing them as statics in a card but as real people; those he agreed all need to be taken care of to the fullest extent - the only question being how.   

There is a reason that the most awesome oratories share personal stories, and the most poignant POI’s share connections with audiences, and what I deem to be the greatest debaters never forget the lives of those around them. Because these true champions recognize that speech and debate should be - above all else - human.