Bartanen; Hollihan and Baaske; Miller; Zarefsky; Patterson and Zarefsky). This debate has offered new perspectives from which to view making decisions. However, in our debate on the issue, some coaches and judges have been so driven by one decision making approach that they have lost respect for other approaches. Debaters chastize judges who use stock issues, who want slower debates, or any approach to judging that they, the debaters, do not like. Coaches do the same, making comments like, “his paradigm is just weird,” and “she’s one of those gamesplayers who is ruining debate.” We should replace these views with tolerance. Instead of valorizing one decision-making approach to judging, we should value any reasonable approach.2 We can certainly debate the merits of any approach; but, we should not reject the value of others who have different views of how to make a decision. Each perspective is worthy if for no other reason than a human being views the world from that perspective. In addition, being exposed to a variety of approaches toward judging educates debaters about adjusting their arguments to different audiences. However, we should not be left without a way of talking about better versus worse decisions. The maxim “the judge is always right” is unfulfilling because the judge’s rightness does not mean that he or she has communicated that rightness effectively. Debaters and coaches need to understand why a judge voted the way he or she did and some decisions do a better job of explaining why. We ought respect difference yet still aspire to better decisions. A focus on the justifications that judges offer for their decisions can achieve this goal. The purpose of this essay is to identify a way in which all judges can make good decisions, regardless of their decision making approach, using an approach based on justifying decisions. TOWARD AN EMPHASIS ON DECISIONS AS JUSTIFICATIONS A justification approach would go beyond the current emphasis on decision making and interpretive approaches. Decision making approaches, like policy systems theory, stock issues, and hypothesis testing, primarily seek to identify the issues upon which to come to a decision. For example, the stock issues approach stresses the issues of significance, inherency, solvency, disadvantages, and topicality. Very little in this body of scholarship emphasizes justifying the decision. Rather, the priority is on selecting the right rules, principles and issues upon which to base a justification.3
Bartanen; Hollihan and Baaske; Miller; Zarefsky; Patterson and Zarefsky). This debate has offered new perspectives from which to view making decisions. However, in our debate on the issue, some coaches and judges have been so driven by one decision making approach that they have lost respect for other approaches. Debaters chastize judges who use stock issues, who want slower debates, or any approach to judging that they, the debaters, do not like. Coaches do the same, making comments like, “his paradigm is just weird,” and “she’s one of those gamesplayers who is ruining debate.” We should replace these views with tolerance. Instead of valorizing one decision-making approach to judging, we should value any reasonable approach.2 We can certainly debate the merits of any approach; but, we should not reject the value of others who have different views of how to make a decision. Each perspective is worthy if for no other reason than a human being views the world from that perspective. In addition, being exposed to a variety of approaches toward judging educates debaters about adjusting their arguments to different audiences. However, we should not be left without a way of talking about better versus worse decisions. The maxim “the judge is always right” is unfulfilling because the judge’s rightness does not mean that he or she has communicated that rightness effectively. Debaters and coaches need to understand why a judge voted the way he or she did and some decisions do a better job of explaining why. We ought respect difference yet still aspire to better decisions. A focus on the justifications that judges offer for their decisions can achieve this goal. The purpose of this essay is to identify a way in which all judges can make good decisions, regardless of their decision making approach, using an approach based on justifying decisions. TOWARD AN EMPHASIS ON DECISIONS AS JUSTIFICATIONS A justification approach would go beyond the current emphasis on decision making and interpretive approaches. Decision making approaches, like policy systems theory, stock issues, and hypothesis testing, primarily seek to identify the issues upon which to come to a decision. For example, the stock issues approach stresses the issues of significance, inherency, solvency, disadvantages, and topicality. Very little in this body of scholarship emphasizes justifying the decision. Rather, the priority is on selecting the right rules, principles and issues upon which to base a justification.3
81writeballots.docx