Persisting: Post-Rounding
By: Samantha McLoughlin ‘21
When I was younger, my coaches used to joke that according to me, I’d never lost a round. They weren’t far off. Even now, I, like many other debaters, struggle with the problem of admitting defeat. Debate has a tendency to bring together strong-willed, stubborn students—characteristics which, at their best, are translated into passion and hard work. At their worst, these characteristics can manifest themselves in toxicity and hurtful anger.
One of the most prevalent manifestations of these characteristics is post-rounding. For most of my debate career, I post-rounded often and without a second thought—if a judge made a terrible decision, didn’t they deserve to be yelled at for it? But as I’ve lost my naive belief in my own invincibility, I’ve also come to self-reflect more on my own post-round habits (and, as a result, tried to improve them). In this article, I’ll do my best to outline the pros and cons of post-rounding, and how to navigate the post-round discussion in a respectful and productive manner.
What is post-rounding?
Post-rounding is an interestingly hard term to define. There are some after round questions that seem distinct from post-rounding—for example, “what was the correct 2NR?” On the other hand, there’s the other extreme where the post-round “discussion” is characterized by disrespectful yelling and ad hominem attacks.
However, drawing a line where respectful questions become post-rounding is somewhat difficult. And as much as debaters like brightlines, I think the easiest way to define post-rounding is just that “you know it when you see it.” For the rest of this article, we’ll use the term post-rounding broadly to include any after-round questions that attempt to prove the judge wrong or express frustration with the decision.
When is post-rounding valuable?
No one thinks a post-round can change a judge’s decisions. So, what’s the benefit? The most obvious and pronounced benefit to post-rounding is encouraging better decisions. Post-rounding can function as an accountability measure to ensure judges put time and effort into their decisions. If a judge knows they’ll have to rigorously defend their decision, they are more likely to be more careful and thoughtful in crafting their RFD. In a similar way, in addition to checking back bad decisions, post-rounding can also hold people accountable for racist, sexist, or otherwise repugnant decisions.
Post-rounding can arguably also have educational benefits, as it gives the debater more insight into the decision. However, post-round discussions that aim to learn more about where the debater could’ve improved (or otherwise gained educational benefit) seem to fall generally out of the scope of what we traditionally understand as post-rounding.
Purely from the perspective of the debater, post-rounding can be therapeutic as it allows them to channel their frustration at a loss they perceived as unjust. But at what cost?
What are the potential harms of post-rounding?
The most obvious and prominent harm from post-rounding is its effect on the judge. Post-rounding often devolves to disrespectful and rude intimidation, featuring ad hominem attacks or yelling instead of substantive discussions. In most post-round discussions, both the debater and the judge already have their minds made up. Therefore, post-rounding is usually characterized by a close-minded stubbornness that can manifest itself in condescension and bullying.
This experience isn’t just counterproductive and devoid of educational benefit. It can also be scary and intimidating for judges, possibly discouraging them from judging in the future—a huge harm in a debate community that relies on the time commitments of educated judges.
From the perspective of the debater’s self-interest, aggressive post-rounding could also make the judge subconsciously less likely to vote for them in the future. However, this dynamic is not always true. The flip side can be a perverse incentive to post-round aggressively so that judges are more likely to decide in your favor in the future out of fear, an incentive that can undermine the supposed benefits of post-rounding.
There is also somewhat of a trend of coaches who haven’t watched the round post-rounding on behalf of the student. In some cases, the coach asking questions makes sense—especially when the debater is a novice, or someone too scared to ask questions for themselves. But those coach questions should stay solely in the realm of advice. If the coach didn’t watch the round, it seems illogical to me that they could have any productive or educated post-round. Moreover, if the debater themselves cannot articulate how they won without their coach stepping in, they probably did not deserve to win that round.
Even if post-rounding is theoretically supposed to hold judges accountable to making good decisions, it’s often only the schools and debaters with the most power that have both the confidence and the political capital to post-round in a way that benefits them. Even absent institutional dynamics, using post-rounding as a means of ensuring better decision-making seems to ensure only that judges make better decisions for those who post-round, possibly skewing the decision-making process against those who are too young, shy, or underprivileged to feel comfortable post-rounding.
The dangerous dynamics of post-rounding can be emphasized by existing power dynamics. Especially when the judge is in a position of comparatively less power (based on institutional resources, race, gender, etc.), the post-round can become another site of micro-aggression. In the context of gender, this problem can manifest itself in male debaters refusing to respect or listen to disagreeing opinions from non cis men judges. Especially for younger judges, these gendered experiences can be hurtful and scary, possibly driving non cis men judges out of the community. This is not to say that non cis men judges are beyond criticism, but rather that the same double standards and gendered assumptions that exist in debate can also exist in judging.
How can we productively channel post-round energy?
Asking questions about the decision can be productive, but generally, debaters should try to err away from post-rounding and towards asking questions geared towards improvement. Instead of expressing frustration about how the judge didn’t understand an argument, ask how you can better articulate this argument. Open ended questions asking for advice almost always generate more productive discussions than questions that are largely rhetorical or aggressive. While debaters usually leave the post-round with nothing but unresolved frustration, debaters who focus on constructive questions leave the round with concrete suggestions for improvement.
Another suggestion is to take the time between the end of the round and the RFD to write down which areas of the flow you thought you won or lost, or areas you felt you could potentially improve in. In addition to soothing stress, this process can also create a guide for possible questions to ask after the round.
Realistically, there are some rounds where debaters are just too frustrated to ask productive questions. In these cases, taking a deep breath and waiting until calm to ask questions can avoid the impulsive escalation of the post-round discussion. Sometimes it’s most beneficial to just email the judges afterwards. Especially given the fact that post-rounds can be time consuming, cut into meal breaks, and exhausting, email discussions can also be more productive and calmer.
Sometimes, even asking productive questions can go nowhere. Some judges just won’t think about debate the same way you do. In cases where you realize that the disconnect between you and the judge is so wide that asking for advice feels pointless, post-rounding is the most counterproductive. If it’s obvious you and a judge will never see eye to eye, it can be beneficial to just let it go, rant to a friend about the bad decision to make yourself feel better, and then move them down on the pref sheet.
In the end, the truth is just that post-rounding is rarely worth it. It can provide some impulsive relief from the frustration at a bad decision, but it’s usually just that—an impulsive, misguided reaction that many debaters inevitably tend towards, myself included. But giving into these impulses comes at the expense of judge comfort, respectful discussion, and educational benefit.
I can’t in good conscience tell anyone to never post-round ever again—as someone who has struggled with controlling my post-round frustration (often unsuccessfully), that would just make me a hypocrite. But I can say that debaters have an obligation to self-reflect on their own choices about post-rounding. Post-rounding can be helpful and beneficial in some instances, but if you react to every loss with the same aggressive reaction, that says more about you than your judges. When deciding whether to post-round, debaters should try to look past their emotions in the moment and consider the broader potential harms of their actions.