The first file I clicked on was a topicality shell (DDW11-Topicality-Wave2-NEG) which has some interesting theory arguments. Another good reason to review them is they bring up some interesting examples of tags and cards. For example, in the file on page three is this card trying to assert that Depth (smaller topic) is better than breadth (big topic).

3. Studies prove – depth is better than breadth.
Arrington, UVA Today, ‘9 (Rebecca, UVA Today, “Study Finds That Students Benefit From Depth, Rather Than Breadth, in High School Science Courses” March 4)

A recent study reports that high school students who study fewer science topics, but study them in greater depth, have an advantage in college science classes over their peers who study more topics and spend less time on each. Robert Tai, associate professor at the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education, worked with Marc S. Schwartz of the University of Texas at Arlington and Philip M. Sadler and Gerhard Sonnert of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics to conduct the study and produce the report. “Depth Versus Breadth: How Content Coverage in High School Courses Relates to Later Success in College Science Coursework” relates the amount of content covered on a particular topic in high school classes with students’ performance in college-level science classes. The study will appear in the July 2009 print edition of Science Education and is currently available as an online pre-print from the journal. “As a former high school teacher, I always worried about whether it was better to teach less in greater depth or more with no real depth. This study offers evidence that teaching fewer topics in greater depth is a better way to prepare students for success in college science,” Tai said. “These results are based on the performance of thousands of college science students from across the United States.” The 8,310 students in the study were enrolled in introductory biology, chemistry or physics in randomly selected four-year colleges and universities. Those who spent one month or more studying one major topic in-depth in high school earned higher grades in college science than their peers who studied more topics in the same period of time. The study revealed that students in courses that focused on mastering a particular topic were impacted twice as much as those in courses that touched on every major topic.

But how I presented it above is not how it’s underlined in the brief. The quotation above makes it clear that the study was specifically in science classes. But the card leaves that completely out of the debate!

Now, one could make a very compelling argument that this study can be understood to apply to other areas of education as well – such as when debating public policy. But the brief doesn’t take the time to assert the connection. As a judge (and especially as the opposing debater) this would be something to stress in in a rebuttal. When the evidence in this position becomes really flimsy a judge will begin to evaluate the other evidence in the same negative light.

Share on Facebook

In this case the affirmative defined a US Naval Aircraft Carrier as both “domestic” and as an “airport”. The affirmative then proceeded to win the round by beating the T debate, which the case encouraged. The core strategy of this case was to encourage a “T” debate that the negative had no hope of winning.  This is because on its face the case is not topical, but a clever parsing of terms allowed this case to be topical and the T became a time suck. This case became extremely popular among “younger” members of the team I was on because it provided an easy strategy which required very little debating. This is because of the “domestic” and “transportation” cards which allowed the case to technically meet a definition that it didn’t come close to perceptually. It was, for all purposes, an easy case for weak competitors to debate.

So, the topic is almost here, and many people already have an idea of the direction they intend to travel. This article is meant to encourage competitors to embrace the most intuitive, or predictable, case(s) under the resolution.

WHY GO FOR THE MOST INTUITIVE CASE?

Well that’s a matter of preference. As someone who competed in LD successfully for 4 years and won a number of tournaments I found myself doing both. I think the beginning and intermediate competitors will gain more from debating the nuances of a predictable case that does not merit a “T” debate. It’s my experience that advanced Open-LD debate is mostly about procedurals (at a later date we will discuss using procedurals as strategy). Procedural debate quickly devolves into meta-debate theory that most beginning and intermediate competitors only have a slight familiarity with. Avoiding a procedural debate as a beginner allows you to debate the other stock issues that conveniently get left out of most debate rounds…like solvency!

Another reason to consider the most intuitive case as your first option is that intuitive cases have the ability to decrease the amount of judge intervention in round.  The problem with obscure cases such as Aircraft Carriers is that it triggers a cognitive response akin to rejection in the judge. Obviously, this claim can’t be generalized to all judges, but the principle remains sound. People are less likely to embrace ideas that deconstruct their worldview, so rejection becomes the only viable alternative. This is called cognitive bias, and it’s a real problem both inside and outside of debate rounds.

Sure most teams will already have great strategies for those “predictable” cases. Some teams may even giggle with glee that you’re debating a case that they have tons of cards prepared for. Both of those statements are true, but so is this one: The better debater is the one that wins on a case the opposition was prepared for, not the one that wins because their opponent was unprepared for the case. The former is a statement of skill, while the latter is a statement of luck. Luck can vary from one round to the next, but skills remain the same no matter what your opponent does.

Share on Facebook

For many people “kritik” is a bad word. A no-no in most polite debate circles, kritiks have been called everything from philosophical mumbo-jumbo to really bad debate. Despite what you may have heard, kritiks are none of those bad things people have told you they are. In reality, a kritik is no different than your typical DA-Counterplan debate-save for the in depth philosophical discussion.

NFA-LD Rules clearly stipulate that kritiks are unacceptable, but no one seem to care.

The official decision-making paradigm of NFA LD is that of Stock Issues: Harm (Advantage or Goals), Inherency, and Solvency…The negative may attack any of these issues, but need only win one to win the debate. The negative may also challenge the jurisdiction (topicality) of the affirmative proposal or argue that disadvantages to the proposal outweigh its benefits…The negative may present one counterproposal specific to the affirmative problem area. By this, we mean that the counterproposal must deal with the problem area defined by the affirmative, and not the form of government, economic system, or need for further study (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS A KEY ISSUE IN THE RESOLUTION). http://www.nationalforensics.org/lincoln-douglas-debate/ld-rules

The problem with kritiks, for both coaches and competitors, is that a kritik represents the great unknown in both LD & Parli Debate. Most coaches never had to engage in kritik debate at the level that they have become common today, if they even engaged K’s at all. Furthermore, individuals that embrace both kritik debate, and the philosophical ideas that fuel them are few and far between. So, knowledge on the subject of kritiks is usually only explored in summer workshops, and post tournament parties with other schools/teams. This means that a good deal of coaches, critics and competitors don’t have the knowledge base to evaluate kritiks fairly. As such, the answer for many folks on both the two and four year circuit is rejection and demonization.

This disconnect also speaks to a larger problem emerging in the debate community. Kritiks have become a luxury item, apparently exclusive to certain schools and debaters. This gives these debaters a leg up in competition because they are able to use an argument that a majority of the folks they compete against are not prepared to respond to adequately. In my opinion, this removes equity from debate rounds. Two issues in specific have made the learning curve for kritks quite steep.

1. Most kritik debates are rooted in post-modern theory. Post modernism is usually studied as a part of upper division or post graduate philosophy classes. For the non-philosophy major trying to grasp the ideas in K debate is extremely difficult initially. This is an even bigger problem for people with little to no foundation in philosophy.
2. Kritik debate is usually reserved for the most experienced teams on the circuit. This is not by accident. Kritiks are difficult to understand, tricky to construct, and a pain to articulate. The teams that run them are usually tough competition on a “straight up” interpretation of the resolution. With an obscure kritik they become unbeatable.  Usually, the “kritik” teams are always deep in the out rounds at the biggest tournaments.
3. Kritik debate is designed to challenge our world view, and/or way of thinking. That their world view/way of thinking is wrong,  is not something most people are ready to acknowledge or embrace. As such, kritiks usually trigger cognitive bias in those who are the subject of the kritik, and in some cases this cognitive bias can extend to the judge.

The bottom line is that a kritik is just another argument against your case, and like any other argument made against you it’s possible to beat the argument if you have the right responses.

In LD debate the kriticism is sometimes crafted to look like a regular argument, sometimes not. It really just depends on the judge and your opponent. If your opponent feels the need to belt out a militarism kritik on the China topic because the judge doesn’t mind kriticisms in LD, you should feel confident in being able to respond to the arguments with a combination of cards and analysis based on your knowledge base.

Below we’ll explain Kritiks and a few easy ways to beat them back.

WHAT IS A KRITIK?

If you didn’t already figure it out, a kritik argues that the methodology you use to frame your worldview and build your affirmative case is problematic. The argument occurs pre-fiat which is critical to the way the judge votes on the kritik. If you lose the following arguments, you lose the debate.

1. There is a problem with my ontology/ethics/mindset
2. This ontology/ethics/mindset has some really nasty implications
3. We have a way to fix your ontology/ethics/mindset
4. Words are real Fiat is not. Therefore, our pre fiat implications should come before case because they are the only “real world” implications.

HOW TO BEAT A KRITIK:

Most of the apprehension to kritik debate comes from this section. Most debaters, especially in LD Debate, don’t have the tools required to respond accurately to Cap Bad, or Fem IR, or Orientalism, etc. When I was in my last year of debate I both ran kritiks (Fascismo or “chismo”) and routinely beat them when they were run against me. Here is my in round strategy.

1. Know your judge: If you don’t have access to a judge philosophy booklet before the round it’s acceptable to ask for a judge philosophy in round. THERE IS A GOOD REASON THIS IS #1. Your critic is the most important person in the round. You can short circuit kritik debates before the round gets started by asking this simple question – “How do you feel about kritiks?” If your critic says they are open to all arguments or they love kritiks then follow the steps below. If your judge hates kritiks, and your opponent runs one anyway, you should already know what to do.
2. Pre-empt the kritik in the 1AC: This is a clever way to give yourself some offense against the kritic in the 1AC (frontloading), and more often than not it will go overlooked or under-covered in the 1NC. In Contention One, or Observation One, just after you read the resolution and give the definitions and type of debate (policy, fact, value) and evaluative criteria, throw in the Textual Advocacy is preferable to Sub-textual Advocacy argument. Textual advocacy is everything written in the 1AC. If the negative responds to your 1AC line by line text they are engaged in textual advocacy. If the negative responds to “pre-fiat” considerations then they are engaging in sub textual advocacy by engaging in argumentation that is outside the text of the 1AC. An example of this construction is below

Observation (Contention) One: Resolution Analysis

i. Definitions

ii. Case: Policy

iii. Criteria: Net Benefits

iv. Textual Advocacy is preferable to sub-textual advocacy for a few reasons

a. Textual advocacy is the most predictable form of advocacy in this round because it is derived from the text of the resolution. Both teams are able to read the text of the resolution and have a good idea where the debate is headed. If the affirmative were to interpret the text of the resolution in a sub-textual way the negative would be skewed out of the round, as would the affirmative if the negative engaged in sub-textual debate.

b. Textual advocacy decreases the amount of judge intervention in round by limiting the evaluation, of the round, to the textual arguments alone. Sub-textual arguments ask the judge to accept that portions of debate either do not exist, or should be considered illegitimate. Judge intervention is bad because it destroys the activity by creating unpredictable rounds that discourage participation in the activity. Lack of participation equals the end of debate.

If you are interested in the carded portion of the above argument (Babbie 04) it can be found in Earl Babbie’s book, The Practice of Social Research p.334, or the Content Analysis chapter.

MORE KRITIK STRATEGIES (OFF CASE)

1. Rules Good Blocks: At the core of kritik debate, especially in LD, is a complete disregard for the rules of the activity. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as debaters consider themselves critical thinkers, and challenging normative forms of debate by debating everything, including the rules, demonstrates growth in the activity. Still, rules are rules and we have them for a reason. Defaulting to a block on why rules are good (w/impacts) and why breaking rules is bad (w/impacts) can go a long way to making your opponent uncomfortable in round. PLUS IT’S A GREAT STRATEGY TO FORCE THEM TO ALLOCATE TIME. Spend no more than a minute on your rules good block, and force them to respond. If there is no offense on the rules block you can kick out (don’t go for it) of the argument in the 1NR.
2. Go after the alternative: Once you get to the kritik go to the alternative first. A kritik means nothing without a viable alternative text. Why? Well, without an alternative you have a non-unique linear DA that we have no mechanism to solve for, so why penalize me when the problem will continue to exist regardless of what we do in round. The Alternative is essentially a counterplan to the kritik. As such, like any counterplan it has to solve for the implications of the kritik. This is your first chance to put offense on the K.
   • Alternative Vagueness on every K, no matter what. One of the funny things about philosophers is their confusing use of language and jargon. Often times this language bleeds into the alternative during the K debate. No matter how specific the alternative is you can find a word, or series of words, that can be described as vague. “Embrace the Other” or “Add fem voices to the IR stage” are both examples of alternative texts that can lead to good alt vagueness debates. There is a good amount of literature on policy failures due to confusion about the policy’s intent. Use it to your advantage.
   • Turn the assertions in the alternative. As a type of counterplan, the alternative is open to the same type of arguments you would run on a counterplan. If they remove all government structures, run a tribalism turn and say tribalism will become rampant as people organize along the lines of race. No government = Small Arms Warfare & Small Arms Warfare, according to the UN, is usually the most violent form of warfare. Alt creates more death and destruction. You can turn almost any alt because they usually advocate sweeping changes is societal structures, which have historically ended badly (Chile, Cambodia)
3. Turn and/or mitigate the Implications. In a kritik, the implications are the impacts of the position. So when you turn the implications of the kritik you are saying these are good things. This has to be done carefully, because you don’t want to turn everything they say. A good example would be child labor. If you have implications of child labor bad, you don’t want to say child labor good because it makes you sound heartless, even if you have a good argument. A smart way to divide your arguments would be on three levels. Arguments you can turn (military bad, cap bad, etc) – Arguments you can mitigate (outbreak of war, nuclear war, famine, etc) and arguments you can claim plan solves for (child labor, racism, anthropocentrism). These arguments have to be answered and there is a good combination of offense and mitigation to make the round competitive.
4. Answer the hidden arguments in the Framework (frontloading). THIS IS WHAT MAKES KRITIKS CONFUSING AND DEADLY. Basically, Frontloading is the practice of answering the 1AR in the Framework and implications of the 1NC. Confused? I’m not surprised. This confused the heck out of me until I started running K’s. Basically, the best kritik debaters will take all of the traditional arguments used against a kritik and place a pre-empt to that argument somewhere in the framework or implications (sometimes they can be slipped into the link and alternative, so stay alert. I’ll give you an example of frontloading from the kritik I ran my senior year, Fascismo. All of the pre-empts from the framework are in bold. These are the arguments that one had to answer to beat this kritik. Needless to say, we won a lot of rounds running this kritik because no one could answer the frontloaded arguments well, or they would ignore them altogether.

Framework to the Fascism K (Cards Excluded):

A. The Fascist Authoritarian Nationalist Political Movement exist in the United States

1. The Fascismo is a revolutionary trans class form of anti-liberal and anti conservative nationalism. It is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity. It is highly adaptable to sociopolitical context and can consume a variety of movements and forms that exist inside of its framework.

2. The Fascismo draw from a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents. The Fascismo do not care about left or right, conservative or democrat. The Fascismo only care about articulating itself as a body of ideas, slogan and doctrine.

3. During the inter-war period of the 20th century the Fascismo were manifested as an elite-led armed party that promised to end the threat of international socialism, end national degeneration as a result of liberalism.

4. In the continuing post war period of the late 20th and early 21st century the Fascismo have become military corporatist. They argue in favor of a strong proletarian nation, but not the creation of a proletarian class. The Fascismo argue that they favor all, business and worker alike, and that they can protect the upper-class bourgeoisie from the petite bourgeoisie, and they can protect both from the proletariat. In America this Fascismo is manifested in the populist appeals to the middle class to protect small business and individuals from communism by pledging an economy based on competition and profits, but at the same time stating to oppose big business through taxes and regulations.

5. The Fascismo seek to create a single party state with a government led by a dictator that pledges to maintain national unity and development by forcing individuals to subordinate self interest to the collective interest of the nation or race. The Fascismo seek to permanently forbid the freedom of speech, and criticism. The Fascismo also forbid the quest for equality amongst individuals and military pacifism because all are deemed threats to national unity because they dispute any normative national identity.

B. The Fascismo can only dominate in a world where individuals are willing to support its actions through the use of their agency within the system. It is the initial action that entrenches the mechanisms and power of the state, and it is what the Fascismo need to claim that they are the vehicle through which ends are achieved.

1. The K can be weighed against case because the K exists in a world where the authoritarian nationalist Fascismo political movement is not inevitable because agency can be used contrary to the state or separate from it.

2. The K has both pre and post fiat implications because it not only questions the policies you choose to enact through the state, but also questions the methodology you use pre-fiat to frame you world view. We believe that bad methodology breeds bad policy, and you must first have the correct methodology in order to implement effective policies.

C. We must beat back the regime at all costs. Political Justice and freedom can never exist under the coercive structure of the state. The Fascismo will always place the corporate state before the individual through acts of dominance and coercion.

1. Each act of resistance is one of existential survival where we seek to save ourselves against the Fascismo movement. Each moment of resistance has the potential to deny the movement individuals for consumption, and works its way towards building a critical rupture.

The above framework is filled with a lot of techno babble. This was done to deliberately cloud the issue, or more specifically, confuse the affirmative as to which arguments were really important. As you see from the above bolded arguments, there are six (6) framework arguments that have to be answered in order to with the debate. The most important argument in the framework is the very last argument. This argument gives uniqueness to both the criticism and alternative by pointing out the ability to reverse our present course despit being at the brink. The argument above that is designed as a hidden voting calculus. In this the judge is instructed to consider any act of fighting the regime preferable to any act of entrenching its mechanisms of power. This is an example of both a winning kritik and what you have to be conscious of when faced with a K in LD or Parli. The only way to know what to look for is by running a kritik that uses these same techniques.

When all is said and done you should have at least 1:30 for on case arguments. A good rule to live by is spending as much time on case as you opponent did. So, time them and write it down on your flow. You shouldn’t use less time covering an argument than your opponent, unless you believe you can beat back the argument in less time than that.

THE WEAPONS YOU NEED FOR BATTLE.

Kritiks tend to revolve around the same philosophical areas. Once you get comfortable with philosophy as a subject you’ll notice that there aren’t that many different kritiks. No matter how dressed up they are with a cool name they tend to revolve around the same issues (Economics, Politics, Sociology, and Defense). A good kritik debater can provide good/bad answers for all relevant philosophical issues used in kritik debate. This, like everything else in debate, takes some research to do well. I wouldn’t recommend citting any cards at this point because you won’t know what to cut. Once you practice kritik debate without evidence you’ll find answering the with evidence to be a dream. If you have access to any of the online policy card databases you can download all sorts of kritiks or kritik responses.

If you’re serious about dominating kritiks if they’re run against you, the list below is your study guide. If you know who these people are, and you can argue for or against their most important ideas in a reasoned manner you will find yourself accepted amongst the net-benefits crowd and your popularity on the circuit will greatly increase if you say “Zizek is nuts” and actually know what you’re talking about. At some point you may even turn these arguments into cards.

Common Kritik Philosophers: (not an exhaustive list, just what I’m familiar with)

• Theodor Adorno – Dialectic of Enlightenment (See Horkheimer)
• Giorgio Agamben – Whatever Singularity & Homo Sacer
• Alain Badiou – Being and Event
• Jean Baudrillard – Everything (Simulacrum is Great! – Matrix K)
• Gilles Deluze – Everything
• Jaques Derrida – Everything
• Stephen Dubner – Freakonomics
• Daniel Faber – Eco Pragmatism
• Patrick Geddes – Global Local (Think Globally, Act Locally)
• Jurgen Habermas – Public Sphere
• G.W.F. Hegel – Everything (Dialectic)
• Martin Heidegger – Everything
• Max Horkheimer – Dialectic of Enlightenment (See Adorno)
• Bell Hooks – Everything (Feminism & Critical Race Theory)
• Felix Guattari – Everything
• Jacques Lacan – Everything
• Emmanuel Levinas – Everything
• Steven Levitt – Freakonomics
• Kurt Mandelbaum – Everything
• Johann Most – Anarchism (Propaganda of the Deed)
• Freidrick Nietzche – Everything
• Richard Rorty – Pragmatism
• Jean Paul Sartre – Absurdism
• Edward Said – Everything (Orientalism!)
• Slavoj Zizek – Everything
• Fareed Zakaria – The Post American World

Common Kritik Topics: (not an exhaustive list, just what I’m familiar with)

• Anthropocentrism
• Biopower
• Borders (sovereignty)
• Capitalism
• Coercion (power)
• Crisis Politics (Theatre of the Oppressed)
• Deep Ecology
• De-Schooling
• Development
• Eco (Psychology, Governance, Pragmatism, Feminism)
• Empire (Cap Bad)
• Feminism (Fem IR)
• Freakonomics
• Essentialism
• Gendered Language
• Gifting (Foreign Aid)
• Global-Local (globo-loco)
• Hegemony
• Immigration
• Irony
• Mimesis (mimetics)
• Normativity
• Nuclearism
• Ontology
• Orientalism
• Queer Theory
• Race Theory (Critical Race Theory)
• Radical Ecology
• Realism
• Science (Dialectic of Enlightenment)
• Threat Construction/Terror Talk

A great way to start exploring these issues and philosophers is through You Tube. Great videos about or by all of the individuals/issues above. Thankfully, some LD tournaments offer judging “rules” that exclude the judging pool from considering arguments like kritiks. If you find yourself at a local community college tournament, you may never encounter a kriticism. For you it may be the white rhino of debate. Regardless,  if you have any specific questions about anything above just leave a comment and I’ll do my best to get you an answer.

Good Luck!

Share on Facebook

“Aside from the annual topic change, NFA-LD (and really, the rest of forensics) continues to evolve as an activity itself. As competitors, coaches, and critics, it’s important that we not only recognize these changes but that we seek to analyze them just as we would the topic area for any given year.

As a student and forensics competitor, I’d like to ask you to participate in a brief survey I’ve designed to address attitudes towards topical counterplans in NFA-LD. This survey is for my undergraduate thesis at Western Kentucky University and it is also for the community so that we can have a better understanding towards a particular negative argument. All the information pertaining to consent and the survey itself is included in the link below–thank you for participating and helping me out, as well as helping out the community!”

Survey Link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PFBZ9GP

Share on Facebook

The Lincoln Douglas Committee has revised the wording of the 5 resolutions for
clarification reasons. If you have already voted, and feel you need to change
your ballot, send me a new ballot. The new wording is given below:

______ A. The United States Federal Government should substantially change its military capability in regards to the People’s Republic of China.
[Only change is People's instead of Peoples]

______ B. The United States Federal Government should take action to protect U.S. Legal rights in regards to the People’s Republic of China.
[Only change is People's instead of Peoples]

______ C. The United States Federal Government should significantly change its trade policy and/or practices with the People’s Republic of China.
[Only change is People's instead of Peoples]

______ D. The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its engagement with the People’s Republic of China in one or more of the following areas: energy, environment.
[Change is People's instead of Peoples and instead of "adopt an energy or environmental policy that directly involves" is now "increase its engagement ... in one or more of the following areas"]
______ E. The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its economic engagement with the People’s Republic of China.
[Only change is People's instead of Peoples]

YOU MUST RANK ALL FIVE OF THE RESOLUTIONS IN ORDER FOR YOUR BALLOT TO COUNT.
(1st counts as 5 pts., 2nd counts as 4 pts., 3rd counts as 3 pts., 4th counts as
2 pts., and 5th counts as 1 pt.) The resolution with the hi8ghest points will
be the LD Debate Resolution for 2011-2012 and will be announced on July 1st.

PLEASE RETURN THIS BALLOT BY MAY 30TH TO THE NFA PRESIDENT (Lgene9535@aol.com).
If there is a tie, the NFA President will vote to break the tie.

Only one vote per school: Name of School: ______________________________________

Please vote again based on the amended resolutions for your favorite topic.

Makes sense to address the “People’s v. Peoples” that Nick brought up earlier – probably just an honest mistake by the committee.

I think the substantial changes to Topic D make that resolution much better in my mind. It answers my objections I posted earlier. It removes the need for multiactor fiat since now it’s clear that the US is increasing its engagement on the issue. This preserves negative ground based on China reaction to the engagement.

The changes also solve the “or” problem outlined in my post. Since it would have been nearly impossible to run an energy plan that didn’t also involve the environment affirmatives no longer have to worry about that “or” scoring easy wins for the negative.

I think this topic is vastly improved with the changes and I applaud the NFA-LD committee for listening to feedback and making some quick changes. I now think topic D would be OK.

The similar structure of D & E is an interesting situation. Schools that want the resolution more limited can vote for topic D whereas schools that want a broad topic can vote for E. I hope the similarities between the two don’t mean that the schools that prefer the economic engagement topic end up splitting the vote allowing a 3rd less preferred topic to sneak in.

Based on revised topic wordings I would have to now rank them:

1 – Topic C – trade
2 – Topic D – energy or environment
3 – Topic E – economic engagement
4 – Topic B – legal rights
5 – Topic A – military capability

moving the energy or environment from 5th to 2nd.

Share on Facebook

… The NFA-LD committee has just finished receiving results from the 2010-2011 coaches NFA-LD survey that was sent out two weeks ago to all active NFA member schools. Apparently, preliminary results indicate that a majority of debaters have decided against engaging the substantiative issues of the mental health topic all year. Beyond one or two cases debaters have generally resorted to topicality arguments instead of key issues identified in the topic paper for last year …

I won’t quote the whole thing detailing what’s going on this year – just read it on the IE-L or watch this video message from the committee. I must say that I have to agree based on the word on the street. The real issue though is the course of action the board has decided to take:

Therefore, we stand resolved that in order to debaters to really learn about mental health policy in the United States (AND NOT OTHER COUNTRIES/PLANETS!) we are hereby suspending all balloting for the 2011-2012 topic. Instead, we will repeat this topic for next year in the hopes that debaters will really research the 3-4 case areas available to them and not only 1-2.

Your thoughts? Read more information here.

Share on Facebook

As mentioned in a comment on Michael’s Kritik post one way to view the NFA-LD rules is that they enumerate a certain set of “powers” or “positions” the negative can run.

(This argument may or may not also apply to the affirmative in NFA-LD, but this discussion will focus solely on the negative.)

A few caveats: 1) This is merely my opinion upon reading the rules. I do not intend to impose this viewpoint on any debates I judge. I would, however, welcome debaters making arguments along these lines. I do not know if I agree or disagree – I just hope it will encourage understanding of the function of rules 2) this argument assumes many things which may or may not be true: a) that the NFA-LD rules function in the same way the U.S. constitution can be interpreted b) that the debaters can be envisioned like Congress is in the constitution. This is merely an exercise in interpreting a document and understanding how that document (the NFA-LD rules) sets expectations for debaters, judges, and coaches. This is also an exercise to go back to my political science undergraduate roots!

The NFA-LD Rules

I understand that many here have strong feelings as to the value of the NFA-LD rules. I, for one, am grateful for the rules since they create certain expectations for the debaters entering the debates. Uncertainty creates confusion and deters debaters from participating. I strongly believe that new students in NFA-LD after reading the rules should have a solid understanding of what the debate round will look like. I find that usually the only debaters against the rules are seasoned veterans who want to push the limits – that makes sense.

The rules also serve to limit the breadth and time commitment needed to participate in the activity which also encourages participation. After coaching the event for a few years I’m confident that a new student has to do the equivalent workload of about two platform speeches in order to be ready to debate at their first tournament prepared for most of what they will debate. This is not to say that workload will necessarily lead to success – just that it’s sufficient to not embarrass yourself.

In particular, the subject of this post, focuses on how the NFA-LD rules can enumerate the specific positions the negative can run against the affirmative debater. In this scenario, the affirmative debater thus can prepare for the specific line of attacks granted to the negative debater and be more prepared. Furthermore, coaches and debaters can focus on the limited line of negative attacks – learning those well – as opposed to trying to stay on top of all of the new trends of debating. That is not to say the new trends are good/bad – just that in order to integrate them into NFA-LD under this interpretation of the rules one must first change the rules to include those new lines of negative arguments.

In particular, I wish to focus your attention on the following sections:

1. The opening statement or preamble to the rules:

Competitors in NFA Lincoln-Douglas will be evaluated on their analysis, use of evidence, and ability to effectively and persuasively organize, deliver, and refute arguments.

This can be analogized to the opening clause of Article I, section 8 described below. The NFA-LD section, in general terms, describes how a judge should decide who wins a debate. Article I, section 8, in general terms, describes how Congress should act.

2. Lines specifying what the negative can do:

The negative may challenge the topicality of the affirmative proposal during the negative constructive.

The negative may attack any of these [stock] issues, but need only win one to win the debate.

The negative may also challenge the jurisdiction (topicality) of the affirmative proposal or argue that disadvantages to the proposal outweigh its benefits.

The negative may present one counterproposal specific to the affirmative problem area.

These statements within the rules are the only ones informing the debaters what the negative can do during the debate. Topicality is allowed (it’s actually mentioned twice), refutation of the stock issues presented by the affirmative is allowed, disadvantages to the proposal are allowed, and one counterproposal is allowed. No other places do the rules say what the negative debater can introduce into the debate.

Thus, one can conclude that the negative debater has four options he or she can introduce into the debate that the judge can evaluate them on in deciding who won or lost. But this requires one to view the NFA-LD rules as a set of enumerated powers/positions for the negative – that there are thus no implied powers/positions are available.

Enumerated v Implied Powers

At the basis of my discussion is a debate as old as the founding of the U.S. – and still not settled. When the U.S. constitution was being ratified a lot of discussion centered around Article I, section 8 which starts:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

A debate heated up trying to understand that part of the section with the following 17 or so enumerated powers. Federalist 41 by James Madison represents one side of the discussion. The most relevant section near the end is :

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

Thus, Madison’s argument is that of enumerated powers. While section 8 includes a general statement the rest of the section limits the scope of the first clause.

A Michigan Law Review Article sums up Madison’s arguments as:

“We know from the principles of enumeration and limitation that there must be something Congress cannot do.” (Vol. 94, No. 3 (Dec., 1995), pp. 651-673 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1289945) p. 656

One can apply the same logic to the negative – “there must be something [the negative ] cannot do” – based on the concept of enumerated powers.

Implications for NFA-LD

All interpretations of rules and documents are subject to the final important question – is debate better or worse under this interpretation? Would affirmative and negative debaters, coaches and judges, benefit from applying the NFA-LD rules in such a way as to limit the scope of the negative debater? As referenced in the opening of this post, Michael’s question revolved around the issue of the kritik. It seems very clear that the kritik would not fit within the scope of the negative’s enumerated powers/positions. One might be able to make the argument that on-case refutation could include kritiks of assumptions made in inherency, harms, or solvency but as a standalone, a-priori voting issue (by which I mean, the impact of the kritik is weighed on it’s own and not compared to the affirmative case), kritiks would not seem to fit within the framework of NFA-LD.

It certainly would have been easy for the framers of the NFA-LD rules to add in that “the negative can run a kritik.” But that is left out in lieu of four specific avenues of attack.

It would also have been easy to add a line that “the negative is not limited to the positions outlined above” at the end of the rules. But as Madison points out that would render the enumerated powers moot. Put another way, if the negative has the power to run any position (such as a kritik) that is not specified in the rules – why specify what the negative can run? What benefit does specifying the positions the negative can run in the rules have if the negative can run any argument they wish?

One answer is that the negative is limited to the positions it can run based on the theory of enumerated powers. It certainly is rational for the framers of the NFA-LD rules to limit the scope of the negative’s argument to inform the affirmative debater of potential attacks. Rather than forcing the affirmative debater to prepare for any negative argument the rules set out four specific ways the affirmative has to be prepared to defend their case. This allows, as mentioned earlier, less of a workload for the affirmative encouraging participation.

It also creates a situation where novice debaters will have an easier time picking up the event since the parameters of the debate are clearly laid out ahead of time. I know I need to teach my NFA-LD debaters how to answer topicality, on case refutation, disadvantages, and counterproposals. Beyond that the negative is limited and thus any other positions (such as kritiks) are not to be accepted by the judge.

In the comments section of Michael’s post Nick posed an array of excellent questions and scenarios that put this framework into question. The classic example is that of a debater making racist remarks. Nick persuasively argued that it would be absurd to restrict the right of the affirmative to call out the racist language by the affirmative debater. I would agree that the negative debater may have an ethical responsibility to say something to the effect of that type of speech is not welcome in this activity as it would create a hostile atmosphere and discourage participation by the maligned group. However, I do not agree with Nick that the ballot is the only substantive way to address such speech. That, as a judge, voting for a debater who has used racist language is not an endorsement of that language. That a “loss” in the debate round may not even be the most productive way to address the racist language or convince the debater to discontinue such comments. I think a harshly written ballot, talking outside the round with the debater and his/her coach, and general discussion within the debate community of acceptable and unacceptable speech, would do much better. Now, of course, Nick will say that none of those options are mutually exclusive with the “loss” as well – that I can do all those alternatives and give the loss. And he’s right.

However, I don’t think I need to go with the “loss” to have the same effect. Further, I think this would be a case to bring to the NFA-LD community to include such actions within the rules – perhaps something modeling the part about speed:

If the speaker does not heed the warning in that particular round, the judge is strongly encouraged to give that speaker a loss for that round even if the student has otherwise “won” the debate on the basis of the stock issues.

If the speaker does not heed the warning in that particular round [regarding racist/unacceptable language rather than speed], the judge is strongly encouraged to give that speaker a loss for that round even if the student has otherwise “won” the debate on the basis of the stock issues.”

“The affirmative or negative may address hateful rhetoric introduced in the debate and petition the judge to vote against the offending debater regardless of the outcome on the merits of the affirmative or negative case.”

I look forward to hearing your point of view… Again, I must stress that I’m not sure if I agree or disagree with this interpretation – but I think it would be a fruitful discussion to have –

are there limits on the scope of negative arguments that can be introduced?

Share on Facebook

This is of course a question with as many good answers as there are coaches and competitors. Here are my guidelines for cross-ex:

1) Only ask questions if you already know the answer. An exception to this is when you’re clarifying something that may have been confusing in your opponent’s speech. Even in this case, try to limit your questions. Instead of asking, “How do you solve again?”, ask something like, “What was the tag on your second solvency card?”. Asking broad and open questions just gives your opponent more speech time.  You may also give them a chance to clarify themselves out of links to your arguments.

2) Try to set up future arguments. What I mean here is that you should ask questions in such a way that the answer leads to something you’re going to argue later. So, if you’re on the neg and you plan to run a spending D/A, you might ask, “Your plan costs how many billions of dollars again?”

3) Try to create “bulletin board material”. This term comes from sports, where a player or coach might be asked by a reporter, “What do you think of team X?” That player or coach might respond quickly, “I think they stink, they’ve never been any good, and my 6-month old kitten could play better defense.” The reporter than prints the quotation, and team X promptly puts the quotation up on the “bulletin board” in their locker room to motivate their players. In debate world, this means getting your opponent to say something you can use later. I’m not suggesting you take words out of context, but part of the educational opportunity of debate is recognizing and avoiding leading questions. You might ask, for example, “So, in the debate of children’s lives versus money, your plan clearly comes down on the side of money, doesn’t it?” A good debater will avoid a hasty answer, but an inexperienced debater might say something that will sound very persuasive in rebuttals.

Remember that most judges will not flow cross-ex, and some don’t even listen closely.  If something important happens in cross-ex, you should point it out in one of your speeches, and argue for it’s importance in the round.

Share on Facebook

They can be on coaching, judging, competing, evidence, observing, etc…

I’ll start with one – how many practice rounds do most people have per week?

Share on Facebook

First, I think it is important to consider the role of the judge within the debate round. He or she determines who wins the round, obviously. But there’s more to it than that, I think. Every judge has his or her preferences and worldviews regarding debate. Good debaters will adapt the content of the round to match those worldviews. Like I was telling Danny the other day, if I happen to have the pleasure of debating in front of him some day, I will deliver a persuasive, rational speech advocating policy arguments that appeals to his ideal conceptualization of debate, happily and without complaint. But in front of a judge like, say, Zach Moss, I will delight in breaking out Foucault and ranting about biopower at 300 wpm. (And Zach, if you’re reading this, I promise to be clear! I promise!)

One of the common themes I noticed was the comparison of the debate judge to a member of a trial jury. But I’m not certain I like this comparison. I prefer to compare debate judges to actual law judges, practicing attorneys who are trained in their craft. They have distinct legal views, just like debate judges have debate views, and they have mastered a field that is inherently specialized. Juries, on the other hand, do not have opinions. They are semi-docile bodies who are told to evaluate facts and interpret them to the best of their ability.

Do judges cast votes? Not in jury trials, usually. But then again, when was the last time the U.S. Supreme Court handed instructions to a jury? The highest echelons of law are presided over by trained minds. And yes, Supreme Court justices do vote, and when they rule, it has ramifications everywhere.

Now, let us consider an interesting historical precedent.

Up until a few decades ago, California used to allow lay persons who were not licensed attorneys to  preside over criminal trials. These lay members were typically elected by the general populace, and then assigned to what were known as the justice courts. Under this system, individuals with no experience in law and no formal training within the legal system were effectively permitted to hand out prison sentences. Just imagine taking a random juror off of a case and assigning them to preside over the trial – objection, your honor!

Fascinatingly, this system was actually used for many decades. But in Gordon v. Justice Court (1974), the California Supreme Court ruled that lay persons were not, in fact, qualified to adjudicate such trials. Burke notes in the majority opinion:

The practice of allowing a layman to be a judge in a criminal proceeding must be scrutinized in the light of modern standards and conditions. There has been a vast increase in the number of attorneys in all areas of the state…the increased complexity of criminal law and criminal procedure has greatly enhanced the probability that a layman will be unable to deal effectively with the complexities inherent in a criminal trial…

It is incongruous today for prosecutors and defense attorneys, who must be licensed attorneys, to perform advocacy roles before a judge who does not have a similar background. The [non-attorney] judge is placed in a position of either drawing upon his own experience (which may be limited) or relying upon the position taken by the prosecutor or defense attorney.

Furthermore, the use of lay judges was ruled unconstitutional in violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. For the same reason that persons charged with crimes must be assigned qualified lawyers to defend them, jury trials must be conducted in front of a qualified judge; i.e. an attorney who is a member of the Bar. This logic was laid out in the landmark decision Powell v. Alabama (and later reaffirmed in Gideon v. Wainwright). Justice Sutherland writes:

The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.

Why does this matter?

Debate is by nature a specialized event, with its own procedures, theory, and jargon, all requiring a comprehensive understanding of debate. Is it theoretically possible to use lay judges? Yes. But as the justice courts demonstrated, this was not necessarily the fairest or most constructive manner of conducting proceedings. Would you want, for instance, a “lay judge” who does not flow or understand debate specialization determining who breaks at the national championship? No more so than we would want a “lay judge” who does not understand legal theory sentencing people to hefty prison terms. Yet while the latter has been (thankfully) banished, the former continues to occur.

So, with all that in mind, what determines a sufficient level of qualification? At what point do we draw the line between “lay” and “qualified?” After all, we don’t have a Bar exam that tests this stuff. Here are my thoughts.

I would posit that it is insufficient for a judge to have read or even memorized the rules. A qualified judge must understand what those rules actually mean in practice. This sort of understanding can be acquired first and foremost through knowledge and firsthand experience, i.e. through participation in debate.

The caveat, of course, is that not all debate formats are alike. Pure policy debate requires the highest degree of judge qualification because it has the highest degree of complexity. High school public forum requires the lowest degree of judge qualification because there is virtually no specialization, and intentionally so; members of the general public thus form the majority of the judging pool for that event.

Where does NFA-LD fall? This is interesting because LD is supposed to be a permutation of policy debate and IEs, even if it seldom works out that way in practice.

Let’s consider some examples. Is someone who is experienced in judging IEs, and has a masters in communication, qualified if they don’t understand how the stock issues work? As shocking as this might sound, I would have to say no. I would not want someone who does not understand what the stock issues are and how they function sitting in the back of the room under any circumstances.

Another example: is someone who did IEs exclusively in college, never debated, but coaches LD, has learned to flow, and understands the rules and a small amount of theory qualified? The answer here is a firm yes. This coach will probably hate speed. He or she may give some weight to communicative style in his or her decision. But while this may or may not be the ideal judge for a debater like me, he or she is definitely a qualified judge.

That distinction is very important. We all have our ideal judge. This is what MPJ facilitates (the merits of which I may or may not address at some future time). But consider this: even if I absolutely despise a particular judge’s argumentative and stylistic preferences, if he or she has met the minimum conditions I laid out, then they are very much qualified to judge debate, and I will not complain if he or she is placed in the back of the room. I consider it my responsibility to prepare for every qualified judge – and that includes those whose debate worldviews do not align with mine. Hence, my advice about keeping multiple sets of evidence for the variety of judging styles you are likely to see at every tournament.

I do not consider it a fair burden on a debater to prepare for an unqualified judge. Like members of a jury, their worldviews regarding debate are usually underdeveloped. Too often these rounds devolve into a contest to see who can talk the prettiest, with little (if any) regard given to matters of substance. Can these debates occur as such? Yes, and they often do. Does that make them good debates or fair debates? Just as in instances where lay members served as trial judges, the answer is no.

Rock on, and bring the ruckus.

- Nick

Share on Facebook