The end of the year always leaves us mulling over the big questions in debate. This year, we invite you to join us in doing the same. We invited prominent debate coaches, judges, and college debaters to respond to any item that interested them from a short list of questions about debate. We tried to center the conversation around eternal controversies, contemporary controversies, or things people would want advice on, but we practically invited our guest writers to run wild with their hot takes on debate. Below the fold you'll find responses to these questions by Evan Alexis, Eliza Buckner, Cody Crunkilton, Nate Glancy, Lauren Ivey, Matt Liu, David Rooney, and Jasmine Stidham. "Conditionality: is it out of control or should it be infinite? What's the right upper limit?"
Cody Crunkilton, University of Minnesota assistant coach Infinite. The first defensive argument I will highlight is that I feel like most of the issues that the 2AC faces when answering a lot of counterplans are related to the *number of arguments* - not the *number of worlds*. The problem is that teams are used to seeing two or three counterplans in a debate and their blocks are sized appropriately - if a model of debate emerged where 8-10 counterplans was the norm (and to be clear I doubt that would happen) 2AC blocks would be resized accordingly and I don't think there would be many issues. Moreover, in a model where the neg throws out 8-10 counterplans without any evidence it would be reasonable for the aff to respond by also making a bunch of arguments without evidence, and since late-breaking debates tend to benefit the aff I'm not too concerned about having lots of conditional worlds to deal with in the abstract. Most of the "strategy skew" arguments I hear either boil down to "they said lots of things" or use silly hypotheticals (like "condition on saying yes and saying no") which don't happen (and even if they did, it makes more sense to carve out a conditionality exception for that case than to throw the baby out with the bathwater). Relatedly, the second defensive argument which combines well with the above is that their interpretation links to their offense - most of those hypothetical strategy skew examples would exist in a world of 1 condo or 2 condo so the "one world less" interpretation isn't too persuasive. For me to vote on conditionality, I would need either a) something bad actually happened in the round, b) the aff teams wins a good big picture look at how conditional vs unconditional worlds of debate compare (e.g. - unconditionality would encourage more depth on counterplans at the expense of depth on the aff, I have a pretty strong predisposition towards depth on the aff being more important but could definitely vote on "CP depth > aff depth" if I'm in competing interpretations mode) or c) some catastrophic technical error or a severe skill differential between the two teams. "What do you think of big stick vs soft left affs in debates against the K?" Cody Crunkilton, University of Minnesota assistant coach My personal preference is big stick affs, for two reasons: 1) both the K team's debating and lit is oriented more against soft left affs (e.g. - most teams read soft left affs and most of the people writing K args are saying that "center left is bad" instead of "right is bad") and 2) the biggest issue I tend to see is the policy team *not understanding* what the K says until it is too late - adopting a big stick aff that says hegemony is good gives you more flexibility with regard to not understanding the critique since most K's are not consistent with hegemony. Debate and topics are better when there are clearly defined points of clash within the debate and are less good when teams argue over whether or not something actually was said - big stick affs make the point of clash more clear. Matt Liu, University of Wyoming Director of Debate I think my answer to big stick vs soft left (vs the K) would be that it's a false dichotomy and a bad premise. One isn't necessarily better than the other, either can be predictable and fall into good link ground or easy traps. If you have something new, innovative, clever, and designed to beat the predictable neg args, that's the right answer, whether it's big stick or soft left. It's also a bad premise because there's no universal K team, the right aff for one team might be the wrong aff for another team. This take is just so straightforward it's cold though. Jasmine Stidham, Dartmouth assistant coach I loved reading soft left affs as a debater and still enjoy judging those debates. As with all arguments, there are great versions and not-so-great versions of soft left affirmatives. Before a team commits one way or the other, I would encourage them to think through the following questions:
"What should rule the day in topicality debates, competing interpretations or reasonability?" Evan Alexis, Washington University of St. Louis debate & Debate Ravings editor Competing interpretations. However, reasonability is consistently interpreted as "my aff is reasonable" and not "my interp is reasonable," which is just theoretically wrong. If more people understood this distinction, reasonability would be slightly more preferable than the status quo but still obliges judge intervention. Matt Liu, University of Wyoming Director of Debate I'm ignoring my own prompt, I'm just here to plug this video. This is the greatest explanation of competing interpretations vs reasonability of all time. The video cuts out after a few minutes, but the first few minutes are absolute gold. I can only assume the rest of the video was too amazing for humanity to have. "How much does establishing the counterplan's competitiveness affect your assessment of its legitimacy?" Maggie Berthiaume, Woodward Academy Director of Debate Necessary but not sufficient. A counterplan that doesn't compete is not a winnable counterplan. But the converse isn't automatically true — a counterplan need not be legitimate just because it competes. There are lots of reasons a counterplan might be bad for debate: perhaps it's not discussed in topic literature or it ruins domestic topics (ahem, states, anyone?) "Competitiveness" also isn't one/zero; lots of counterplans might compete, or compete in certain circumstances, or compete if the 1NR invests a whole minute and is faster than the 1A. So establishing competition is essential for the negative, but it doesn't mean that then the counterplan is fine and good, it means the negative now has the opportunity to persuade the judge that the counterplan is fine and good — and the affirmative has the opportunity to do the opposite. "Do you need to win the sustainability debate against the cap K if you are aff and going for the perm?" Nate Glancy, MSU Debate (NDT double-octofinalist, Brick City Round Robin champion) Answering this prompt requires knowing who's winning the framework debate and what this means in the judge's mind. If an affirmative team is decisively ahead for one reason or another on framework and is advocating a plan vs alternative framework then they do NOT need to win sustainability because the alternative needs to resolve sustainability concerns, this makes it more of a competition question wherein the affirmative needs to articulate the possibility of a permutation; however, after clearing that hurdle I believe sustainability isn't a winner. I would conclude that the perm has a mechanism that addresses the pressures endemic to capitalism. IF the neg wins that the aff has to defend capitalism as a system then in my opinion they absolutely are culpable for winning capitalism's sustainability or else the neg gets access to a ton of offense. I suppose the case or some large net benefit could outweigh this, but it would be a long shot. IF the neg wins some middle ground framework that recognizes the role of scholarship, ideology, and representations in the link is much messier for me. There is seldom a clear articulation from neg teams I've debated that explains what assessing sustainability means in a scholarship framework. These seem to operate on different levels, but my best assessment would be that the aff team would NOT have to win sustainability provided they can articulate that their scholarship only posited a defense of capitalism in the context of the aff. By this I mean that the link burden for the neg is high to make sustainability a concern that overrides the permutation. The aff's scholarship would not naturally be complicated unless unsustainable parts of capitalism are necessary parts of affirmative solvency. This holds true for every framework to be fair. "What's the ideal model for non-framework args against K affs? (ie. how do judges weigh presumption, aff solvency vs. case turns/DA/Ks, what types of neg args should be made etc.)" David Rooney, University of Wyoming assistant coach I think this question is a bit of a misnomer because USFG FW doesn't have a monopoly on "framework" arguments that set out the values/priorities we should hold when viewing a debate. There are a lot of strong non-USFG FW arguments to be read against K affs: should the aff get to "fiat" a mindset or world shift that then sets the UQ for the neg DA? Should aff solvency be limited to scholarship and debate or how the performance of the 1AC shifts (or fails to shift) discourse? What are the metrics for determining who has "done" an advocacy and what does that mean for competition-- could the neg also "do" the advocacy with a different emphasis? It might be favorable to pair these with certain arguments: you can spot the aff gets to fiat a new world, but then make a FW argument that you can't fiat away bad actors within that new structure, read a DA that assumes that utopic advocacy + case arguments about how that new arrangement of power could enhance policing and fail to persuade dissenters. Or, you might pair a FW argument about limiting the aff's solvency to debate (rather than "K fiat") with an academy K + a big presumption push + case turns about investing in the ballot. Or you might read a FW argument about the aff's responsibility to clearly set out the limits of its advocacy (who performs it, how does someone know when you have, etc.) alongside a counter-performance PIC that does enough of the aff's advocacy to solve but avoids the K links to the 2AC answer to the FW. In short, this is what K teams already do against each other. I'd rather more teams give up FW in the 1NC to explore these creative arguments that treat K affs as the distinct entities that they are, without the need for a case neg to every aff (which is the strawperson often thrown out). "What's the role of framework in K v K debates?" David Rooney, University of Wyoming assistant coach I'd say there's at least two (probably more) roles for FW in KvK debates: 1. A value system to encourage the judge to weigh some arguments more than others-- ex. A FW that debate should produce actionable tactics, not just theory. Or a FW that contests narrative solvency (affs that call a new world into existence thru discourse) for relying on a humanist grammar. Or a FW that asks the judge to centralize a specific subject location or mode of violence. etc. 2. A procedural question that directs the judge to reconsider what the responsibility of each team is in the debate. This might force the aff to clarify a specific form of their advocacy to avoid shiftiness, ask the judge to heighten the threshold for presumption or lower the solvency requirement for the alt or the link threshold for whatever reason (performance theories, neg ground, etc.). These are probably the most common right now in KvK debates because K 2A's do have a bad habit of spiking links + creating nebulous aff solvency args to avoid case negs. But those affs are strategic against USFG FW, not K fw, so I have hope that practice will fade away the more alternative FW's become popular. There are FW arguments that blur those two roles, such as FWs that critique the aff for forcing the neg to negate personal methods-- which can have procedural impacts (psychological harm, unfair) or value based (crowds out structural analysis), but that's my rough view "People love to complain about what needs to go away in debate, but what debate trend has fallen by the wayside that needs to come back?" Lauren Ivey, Alpharetta High School Director of Debate Debating the case. I'm increasingly judging debates where teams are only reading one or two cards on each advantage and its exclusively impact defense. In the 1nc, I want to see more rigorous case debate and evidence indicts. Instead, I am just seeing a lot of generic impact defense. We also need to be contesting more of the solvency in the 1nc. In most rounds I judge, I'd rather the 1nc read one fewer off case position so they can get to the case with more time. Jasmine Stidham, Dartmouth assistant coach At the risk of sounding like a 27 year old boomer, I really believe that flowing, and flowing on paper should make a comeback. After almost three seasons of online debate, it has become abundantly clear that many debaters have forgotten the long lost art of effectively flowing with pen and paper. My take comes with two caveats: 1. As a teacher, I do understand that flowing on a laptop might be necessary for debaters with certain disabilities. I hope this does not come across as a criticism of students with accessibility needs. 2. It's not entirely the fault of debaters, either. Many students weren't able to learn how to properly flow due to the challenges of online debate. I know how much teachers struggled to teach flowing in an online format, myself included. Putting those caveats aside, I do believe there's some truth to my original statement. Debaters of all skill levels should practice flowing more, and they should try to do it on paper. Students should treat flowing drills like they do speaking drills: do them consistently and often. Watch rounds on Youtube and try to flow them, or do them with your partner/teammate. Remember, it doesn't matter how many cards you cut or how many blocks you write if you can't effectively flow them. "What makes for a good card? What're the tradeoffs between qualifications, consensus, and rhetoric, and what do you prioritize in evaluating evidence?" Evan Alexis, Washington University of St. Louis debate & Debate Ravings editor Warrants > quals > rhetoric. Rhetorical flair is irrelevant without a warrant, and while qualifications can make counter-intuitive warrants more persuasive it's not really useful without a logical explanation of the argument the card is making. "What're your thoughts on how people teach or deploy 'theory of power' in debate? Useful? Overrated? Silly question?" David Rooney, University of Wyoming assistant coach I'm not sure. I think it's a bit overrated: you don't need to outline an ontology or account of the world for every and any argument to "work," and an account of the world should emerge from the link/impact debate anyway. I feel that the TOP fascination comes from a strange attachment to Wilderson and trying to replicate that work inside other literature bases-- either a policy team trying to read their ontology bad blocks against any K because Wilderson is their default mental reference for a K or a K team thinking they need to borrow from afropess to get more explanatory power (but that sauce comes from its truth, not the word ontology!) "Potpourri: what hot take is on your mind that you need an outlet to express?" Eliza Buckner, GMU debate (NDT & CEDA octo-finalist) Stop reading framework. Stop coaching teams to go for it & stop voting for it. If we cannot stomach enforcing an interp that categorically removes planless Affs from the community, what value is there in platforming this argument? Framework is forged in bad faith, whether those advocating it are aware of this fact or not. Its purpose has never been to convert debaters into its model but to punish those who deviate because it presumes that the only reason people read planless affs is to boost their win rates. However, the notion that all K debaters are simply converts from policy debate erases how many people were introduced to this activity and sustained by the "model" of K debate categorically marked for destruction by framework. The last time I read an aff with a plan was my novice year in high school. I never learned how to do policy debate; the coach at my school had only done parli in college, we were starting a program from scratch in rural arkansas, and had no way to keep up with policy's research burden (we didnt even have an impact d file). If we agree, out of round, that planless affs belong in the community why do we forget these convictions when tabroom tells us to click 'start round'? Stop pretending. Planless affs are not going anywhere. Quit acting like you can procedurally write them out of existence when you're already preparing to be unprepared (we all know you're writing fwk blocks and giving practice speeches before the tournament anyways, and if you aren't you're probably gonna lose either way!) Either put in the work to engage the aff on the level of substance (so many innovative neg strategies were developed at CEDA that you could easily build off) or innovate actual T arguments. Give me a reason to care about the topic, and opportunities to affirm it without conforming to the fiated, usfg style of plan debate. We change the resolution each year to have nuanced conversations, not to rehash backfile debates yet somehow the model that lets people read Japan DA blocks from four topics ago is the holy grail of debate merely because it is predictable to do wiki scrapes! Topicality is not Framework, but Framework is Framework. Stop trying to install plan-based debate as universal. I'm sick and tired of people complaining that our activity is dying while they hold a knife stained with blood. Deleuze asked how the masses came to desire their own repression, now it's time to ask why debate desires its own death? Cody Crunkilton, University of Minnesota assistant coach Vagueness: it should be a real argument that wins rounds, particularly with new affs (and also vs K affs): similar to the above, debates are better when both sides agree on what the points of disagreement are. Inability of the aff to say what it is exactly they are doing or defending is obnoxious, results in shallower debates, and discourages the multi-level in depth argument comparison which generates much of the benefits that debate provides. Lauren Ivey, Alpharetta High School Director of Debate The speaker point system needs substantial revisions. Most people give points between 28.5 and 29.5. At tournaments that don't allow ties, I'm forced to indicate a .4 difference between the first and last speaker in the round, even when I don't really want to do that because the debaters are similar in level.. I also think they're so inherently subjective and lead to people preffing those who give high points higher than those who might give good feedback, when our priorities should be the RFD and not points. I"m not sure what the solution is; maybe the 100 point scale, but the community seems to have resisted a shift to that model. David Rooney, University of Wyoming assistant coach The model of topic where affs get an extremely uncontroversial progressive position (Alliances, AT, NHI, etc.) and the neg K is supposed to offer a more radical alt (mutual aid, revolution, etc.) is pretty boring and doesn't meet K debates where they are (and lends itself to a lot of K FW debates to overcome aff solvency/lack of alt solvency). In the last few topics, policy teams have been gifted an unevenly anti-K set-up: no K literature says AT or universal healthcare or withdrawing from NATO are net bad, but only imperfect but potentially radical, the affs are so wide reaching that they short circuit alt solvency, an even FW debate results in weighing the aff for most clash judges unless the K team just crushes which all but guarantees an aff advantage. This is compounded by the fact that K neg examples in topic papers are often just a handful of 3 sentence cards that don't speak much to the depth of the literature. In short, these anti-K affs should never lose. Despite that, they do! It is time that we emphasize good K ground to remedy this problem and force everyone to actually learn how to run/answer the K. Else, the reckoning will come when we inadvertently stumble onto a topic that has great K ground. Jasmine Stidham, Dartmouth assistant coach Hybrid tournaments are not the enemy, people! Hybrid tournaments must be the future of our activity if we want to be sustainable. Are they different? Yes. Does it take a moment to get used to them? Yes. Are they perfect? No, but what tournament is? Just because something is hard does not mean it isn't worth doing. Thanks for reading! This piece addresses a lot of higher level arguments, so if you have questions, feel free to ask in the comments. Also feel free to weigh in as well!
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
MissionWyoming Debate Roundup is dedicated to providing quality debate content to Wyoming and Rocky Mountain area high school debaters. We’re a resource for Wyoming debaters by Wyoming debate coaches. Categories
All
Archives
February 2024
|