Almost everyone I have talked to supports and likes the upcoming NCFCA Team Policy resolution, which addresses reforming Congress. It is because of this overwhelming affirmation, however, I began to realize there may be a slight problem: judge bias. This became exceptionally clear when I started writing a case that tackled term limits. While writing this case, I found a statistic stating that 83 percent of the population supports term limits! This made me realize the vast majority of judges are going enter the round with bias in favor of the Affirmative team. Think about it for a moment… How many people have you spoken with do not think Congress needs to be reformed—in at least one way or another? My guess is most everyone will agree Congress is in need of change. So, what can we do about it? In this article, we are going to examine two primary forms of judge bias and the strategies that play into these biases, we are going to talk about how to counter these biases, and finally, I am going to invite you to join Ethan Tong and I July 31-August 1 for the Lasting Impact Online Team Policy Debate Camp, where we will tackle this issue and so many more! If you haven’t signed up, please plan on doing so through the Lasting Impact website here… or keep reading Roman’s opinion below….
The first form of judge bias you are likely to encounter this season is the overwhelming desire to change Congress. When thinking of Congress, the first things that come to mind might very well be: swamp, slow, corruption, politics, and bills/legislation. People have a cognitive bias toward changing Congress because many see Congress as being inefficient and ineffective. Judges with this bias want a solution and could very well be inclined to agree any change is better than no change. If an Affirmative team can play to this bias and convince the judges that their plan will fix and change things, then a judge is more likely to support the case.
This bias is going to support an AFF strategy known as the “why not strategy.” The strategy asks the judge why, at the end of the round, he/she would not pass their plan. This strategy specializes in having cases that don’t necessarily have a large impact but also don’t result in many disadvantages—that way the round focuses on Solvency and Comparative Advantages, rather than on Disadvantages. If the AFF team has disarmed the disadvantages, then they can claim the plan will result only in benefits. Even if those benefits are small, the question is then begged, why not? Pair this strategy with the cognitive bias of wanting any change within Congress and a judge is very likely to side with the Affirmative.
The second form of bias debaters may run into this season is an absolute distrust of Congress. This is rarer, but if a judge has this bias, it is going to be very difficult to overcome. The Negative team will have to be aware of the judges’ inclination for change and their being predisposed to the idea that Congress is corrupt and bad. At the same time, the Affirmative team will have to address the fact that a judge with such bias could be inclined to believe Congress cannot possibly fix itself and is beyond repair (due to distrust and corruption)—no matter what plan is proposed.
This bias is going to support the AFF strategy known as “complete reset.” This strategy addresses a judge’s inclination to the absolute brokenness of the system. In this situation, the AFF team will load as many harms as possible into the constructive speeches through a Dicto Simpliciter argument. This overarching argument does not take into account the intricacy of Inherency, but the response will be the same: the situation is broken and we need a change. At the end of the round, a key phrase for the AFF may be something to the effect, “we need a reset.” This phrase does two things for the judge. First, it plays to judge bias, establishing the Affirmative team understands how broken Congress is. Second, the thesis offers a solution—a radical solution at that—but a solution nonetheless. Pair this strategy with judge bias and the judge at the end of the round will feel that the AFF team best understands the situation and has provided a solution to address the innate, corrupt nature of Congress.
With these biases in mind, how does the NEG team address these apparent predispositions? The answer lies first in understanding how these biases affect decision-making and secondly in emphasizing lots of disadvantages. Let’s consider the first bias—that of Congressional change being needed. This bias focuses on positive impacts more than anything else. Judges with this bias often correlate change with positive results. People realistically don’t want to see change; they want to see positive results coming from Congress. Polls illustrate this point; Congressional approval rates often remain the same when a new bill is passed, yet when a news article goes viral regarding a piece of legislation having a positive impact on the economy, then Congressional poll numbers skyrocket. Understanding this will help the NEG team redirect judge bias. The reason that I say it like that is because you will not be able to change a judge’s bias in an eight-minute speech, but you may be able to use the biases that already exist to your benefit. By redirecting the focus from the Affirmative plan making a change for the better, you can point out how the current system has been positively impacting everyday lives. The team with the greatest impact wins in this scenario!
The second bias focusing on the corrupt nature of Congress can be countered with one simple word: loophole. This bias I believe is actually better for the NEG team, as it is easy to say that if Congress is already corrupt and circumvents rules and procedures, then surely Congress will abuse any new regulation the AFF team proposes—the new proposal possibly even being worse than the current system. In this scenario, the judge is left with an AFF plan pointing to an abusive system and NEG arguments pointing out things will likely be worse off under the Affirmative plan. It is bad all the way around, but your judge is already inclined to believe Congress is in a state of decay, so the AFF team will have an uphill battle convincing the judge their proposed change is going to make any difference.
Finally, for the Negative team, disadvantages will be key to countering judge biases. Daniel Kahneman has an amazing chapter in his book, Thinking Fast and Slow. Here, Kahneman writes about how people would rather remain in the same situation if there is a small chance of success than possibly receive harm due to their actions (No, I do not have an affiliate link—it is just an awesome book). Essentially, if you can show that there will be a high probability of harm, then a person will be very hesitant to pass a plan or invoke change. In the same way, if a judge thinks that there is a higher probability of abuse, then they won’t want to change the situation for the worse. Disadvantages help play into both of these fears and the cognitive bias against change.
Ultimately, biases are everywhere, and they are going to affect our lives. The only thing we can do in the short term is try to ease any concerns exacerbated by judge bias and counter the other side’s attempts to play to those biases. It is going to be especially important this year to listen tojudging philosophies, listening to for any biases your judges may have. The two I’ve discussed here are by no means a comprehensive list of biases, and I challenge you to think of a bias or two that you or that your judges may have.
If you have appreciated these tips and insights into cognitive biases, then you may be interested in our Lasting Impact Lincoln Douglas and Team Policy summer camps, which will be held on July 24-25 and July 31-August 1. These two-day camps are great for experienced debaters, as well as brand new debaters, as Ethan Tong (an amazing and highly-accomplished coach) and I will be doing breakout groups, as well as joint sessions to work with students at all levels. If you are interested in these camps, please sign up on the Lasting Impact website (https://lastingimpact.info/product/club23888/) or reach out to Mrs. Neumann for more information.
I pray that you have a great season full of growth and excellence.
God Bless,
Roman Hogancamp
Roman is one of our Lasting Impact! Coaches. He is also leading the charge in our soon to be released Team Policy Sourcebook. Schedule a coaching call with Roman today!