Introduction to NFA-LD

I would like to discuss “NFA-LD” theory and rules – in great detail – and at any time and in any forum.

At the outset, I would like to put some preliminary information “out there.”

1. Although I have been a licensed attorney for 23 years, I have also been coaching debate and individual events – in one forum or another – since 1970. I love both activities (debate and IE), and consider their preservation essential to the cause of higher education in America.
2. I think NDT/CEDA-style college debate is a disaster. It has, in my opinion (and I speak only for myself), become anti-educational and anti-intellectual.
3. I do not think that Parli Debate is an adequate substitute for NDT debate as it used to be (circa 1947-1990). In fact, I don’t like Parli debate – at least as it is currently practiced – very much. In my view, college “debate” without research and evidence is like a cafeteria which serves only water.
4. NFA-LD represents the last, best hope for fact-based academic policy debate at the college level.
5. I judged NFA-LD at APU – and was one of the judges who was honored to judge the final round. In my opinion, there was good news and bad news coming out of that tournament.

THE GOOD NEWS: there was some very good debating going on – through and including the final round.

THE BAD NEWS: there was A LOT of truly BAD judging. I know – based upon personal observation – that several judges did not follow the rules, and substituted instead their own personal standards – on a purely arbitrary and completely unpredictable basis. (One case in point: “if the Negative does not present a Counterplan, the Negative must lose.”) Indeed, I saw and heard one judge – who admitted he had never judged the event before – refuse to even read the rules.

There must be clear standards and clear rules which govern NFA-LD. Otherwise, as sure as night follows day, it will lapse into the nethworld of either NDT-Lite or Parli-Lite or both.

NFA-LD is a bright new day – filled with hope. Let’s make it work!

Thanks for the comment. I agree with what you said, that the judging pool need some work, and some of the basics of policy-resolution debate theory need to be re-emphasized in the community.

I also agree. I believe that it is okay to preserve a conversational quality, but still have qualified judges. A two sheet paper discussing stock issues as a paradigm is only useful if the person reading it knows what the stock issues are. Not only is there bad judging in LD, there is some bad debating. I see many of the LD debaters carry over from Parli. They may read a case with evidence, but there is not reliance on evidence in rebuttals. Further, some of the more successful LDers are making up arguments, just like in Parli. If we have unqualified judges rewarding that bad behavior because they sound good, or speak slowly, we have created a new unbearable style of debate (slow and full of it).

My suggestion is to have certified LD judges, either with an evidence-based policy background or some kind of demonstration that they have learned about the stock issues and are willing to enforce the rules set forth by NFA-LD. We can’t assume they know what stock issues are, we have to teach them. We also should not tell them which stock issues is the most important, we should present them with the literature on stock issues. We should go over tests of evidence as well. We shouldn’t tell them that cross-examination is or is not binding, we should tell them about both views and let them decide on their own. And we shouldn’t attempt to operationalize “conversational speed” unless we are willing to count the words per minute and make sure that the count is consistently at 177, or whatever it is.

That all being said, I advocate for a debate clinic in order to certify judges so that they may judge in LD. Only then will people realize how demanding the activity is for the debaters. If we allow anyone to judge, we send the message that no matter what your credentials you can judge LD. That really defeats the entire purpose and our goal of setting the activity apart from Parli and other non-evidence-based activities.

As a former “championship” debater (whoopdee-do) and retired trial attorney (even more whoopdee-do), I would be more than willing to work with anyone on any methods (seminars, printed materials, camps, etc.) to establish and/or promote objective minimum standards for judging this event.

As an idealist, I would be willing to do this on a volunteer basis. But as a capitalist – and also one of those teachers who really does buy school supplies for his/her students out of his/her own pocket – if I could receive some sort of compensation, that would be even better.

Well the payoff would be that we would have qualified judges and when we coach our debaters we wouldn’t have to account for such malpractice among the judging pool.

I’d do it for free, but I do see your point of doing it for money.

One opportunity is for Mike to have several speakers at his LD workshop in January.

Which “Mike?”
What “Workshop?”
Do you need a guest lecturer (gratis – since we’re just starting out)?
And, while I’m at it, What is reality?

One thing that would also help your fledgling and growing NFA-LD community is to get your teams traveling out of region more. NFA-LD has a foothold in the Midwest (Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska) region, the Upper-Midwest (Ohio, Michigan), the Mid-Atlantic (Pennsylvania, Virginia) and the Northeast (New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York).

Getting to other regions and seeing how NFA-LD is done nationally will help you adapt to judges at NFA Nationals and help you decide what traits to bring back to your region.

Mike Marse at Cal Baptist tends to have a workshop some time in January for new LDers, since many schools around here only start LD in the Spring. And I have no idea what reality is anymore . sek