Disclaimer from Ruby: Alan does NPDA, so I understand that the system of strikes/constraints (similar to conflicts in HS debate) Alan discusses may not be the same for those of you who do different events, but the sentiment is important nonetheless.
Content warning: the following article contains references to ableism and sexual violence.
Every debate tournament should at least attempt to offer judge strikes. My recommendation is that tournaments should include a provision in their invites such as “each debater will be allowed to strike 15% of the pool. If there is a shortage of judges, we cannot guarantee that we will respect strikes, so we strongly suggest you use constraints instead if there is someone who absolutely cannot judge you.” In this article, I will explain the benefits of strikes and answer the most common objections to them.
Benefits of strikes
Accessibility
Some judges are biased against marginalized debaters in ways that are difficult to prove to coaches and tournament directors. For example, as a competitor with a speech impediment I know from my own experience which judges are most likely to punish me for the way my voice sounds, but the discrimination I have experienced is rarely overt enough to complain to tournament officials about an equity issue (though I would of course support other disabled competitors who choose to report ableist judges).
Instead, I would like to be able to decide for myself which judges I need to avoid. At NPDA nationals last weekend, I was able to use strikes to avoid judges who would be likely to discriminate against me for my voice, and it greatly improved my tournament experience. While it’s not my personal experience, I would imagine there are situations debaters who are women, people of color, and openly queer debaters know that a particular judge is biased against them and would like to strike that judge. Strikes give marginalized debaters agency to determine which judges they can avoid.
Support for survivors
Strikes could also be useful if a competitor feels uncomfortable with a judge who might be sexually interested in them, but doesn’t have anything serious enough to report a formal complaint of sexual harassment. Also, it is very difficult for competitors to successfully out predatory coaches due to power differentials, so if a competitor feels uncomfortable with a particular judge, strikes can give them a way to avoid that judge without any risk to themselves.
Survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment should choose on their own terms when and if to come forward, and should not be pressured to do so just to avoid being judged by a perpetrator. Without strikes, survivors will be faced with three choices: report their assault/harassment which is often not safe as the debate community has often been hostile to survivors who try to report; risk being in a triggering situation where they are in an enclosed room where the perpetrator has power over them, or forfeit the round if they are unfortunate enough to be assigned the perpetrator as a judge.
Answers to objections
A2: Strikes prevent judge adaptation
This is a common argument against strikes, but it is actually just an argument against prefs. Allowing a small number of strikes will rarely allow you to strike all judges who don’t prefer your specific style of debating. If a tournament pool is mixed between IE and debate judges, you’ll still be judged by both even if you have strikes. For example, NFA nationals has a pool that is balanced between lay and flow judges, and it is not likely that a competitor could avoid one type of judge just by using strikes.
A2: Strikes are impossible at small tournaments
This is why my recommendation is that tournaments reserve the right to ignore strikes if the pool is too small to accommodate them. Tournaments can prioritize constraints over strikes. This is not a sufficient response, because even small tournaments can at least reduce the probability that a competitor will be judged by someone they want to avoid. Also, even small tournaments can accommodate strikes in late out rounds, so that if I make it to finals I won’t have to appeal to someone who hates the way my voice sounds.
A2: Constraints solve
Constraints do not work in all situations. Generally, in order to get a constraint, you must justify it to the tournament director, and tournament directors are not impartial authorities. They are human and they have their own biases, and may be reluctant to believe that a judge they know well has engaged in problematic behavior. I have tried and failed to use this as an alternative to striking. While I do support debaters using constraints in the situations explained above, they should not have to out themselves just to avoid being in front of one particular judge. There are situations in which debater who has a hidden disability or is a survivor of sexual violence may not feel comfortable describing why they need a constraint.
Not Debatable 