Reflections of a Debater

I recently had an interesting conversation with Steve from Pacific in which he told me that he thought debaters should actually adapt to IE judges.
Now, this, of course, threw me through a loop. I mean, after all, it is the debaters' activity. Jargon exists within the activity for a reason. Debaters should be able to run the arguments that they think will win them the round ... and, in a perfect world, winning the round means winning the ballot, as well. Hell, I wrote about why speed is good for debate! Of course I loathed adaptation.
I was never the type of debater who adapted very well to the judge. It's not that I was bad at explaining things to judges who were unfamiliar with debate; it's that I didn't feel it was my responsibility and that they were the ones bastardizing my activity.
NFA this year was a perfect embodiment of this sentiment for almost the entire debate community. During round six, which was many debaters' break round (every single member of my team included because all of them were 3-2 going into round six), five seemingly legitimate judges were on stand-by, without ballot ... while many IE/hired judges had ballots. IN BREAK ROUNDS. There was a huge upset in the community surrounding many of the decisions made in out-rounds.

I guess the reason I'm writing this is that I've never really thought about how I feel about adapting to the judge. On the one hand, I understand that part of being a good debater is not just being able to run the positions that you know you can win, but being able to persuade someone that you should, in fact, win. If debate was about running your favorite positions all the time, it would be reduced down to generic disadvantages, topicality, counterplans or critiques every round and there would be little in-depth case debate. On the other hand, though, debate is not suited to the lay man and debaters should be able to have control over their own activity.

Perhaps the most interesting spin on the argument that one should adapt to the judge came from people from Pacific. Their coach was talking about how the judge is never wrong. It is their ballot and if you did not do everything you could to capture that ballot, then you did not do your job as a debater. He was very straight-forward about it, and the ironic thing is that people from Pacific are generally thought of as faster debaters. The other thing is that Steve said that debaters disrespecting IE judges is indicative of a greater amount of disrespect that debaters have for IEs, in general. He said that neither event is more important than the other and we should, as a result, have mutual respect for one another and one another's events. I liked thinking of it this way.

I don't know if I've reached a conclusion, but I intend to reach a conclusion on this very subject one day. Today is not that day, but I do anticipate many more debate blogs to come.