Author: Josh Mitchell, University of Wyoming debater and Cheyenne East alumni Editor’s note: this article is part of a special feature on debate norms in PF. To read the counterpoint by 2011 NDT octo-finalist Dan Bagwell, click here. In “Evidence, Etiquette, and Ennui,” Dan makes some pretty good arguments about speech docs. I agree 100% with everything he said there. However, I have some qualms with his arguments about paraphrasing. In PF, even if not in other events, paraphrasing is a useful practice. It’s also worth pointing out that Dan’s suggestions related to speech documents would resolve his most stinging critiques of paraphrasing. If debaters are sending each other speech docs, their opponents can follow along and look at any paraphrased evidence they need to in order to evaluate the legitimacy of the paraphrasing. However, we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water: paraphrasing is good for PF. 1. Paraphrasing leads to better debating
Paraphrasing enables more depth in debates. It allows debaters who debate in slower circuits to utilize more evidence than they otherwise would. Card cutting incentivizes minimal warrants. Reading evidence verbatim burns valuable time that could be spent explaining arguments in a more specific context. In order to get as many words in as possible debaters will cut corners on warrants. However, paraphrasing allows you to explain the warrants in your own words, which rewards efficiency. The best evidence that lays out layered claims are exactly the cards that are best paraphrased because they allow more efficiency in explaining the diverse warrants the card presents without the jargon. It also incentivizes better understanding of arguments. The best way to truly understand something is to teach it to someone else it. Paraphrasing is exactly that: it forces debaters to better understand what their evidence says and explain it back to the judge. Instead of just vomiting the exact wording of your ev for 45 minutes, debaters have to explain, articulate, and think through the warrants of their evidence. Paraphrasing also incentivizes you to use better and more complex evidence than would otherwise be possible. Complex cards use unnecessary jargon and take too much time. Explaining jargon means effectively doubling the time spent on one argument. With paraphrasing you just spend time explaining what the evidence means and articulating the warrants. This incentivizes better research. 2. Paraphrasing is a symptom of a problem, not the cause As long as the incentive exists for debaters to try to spin to win arguments evidence standards will always be an issue. I do not believe that paraphrasing is the biggest cause of these problems. There are several alt causes: first, the teams who would exploit paraphrasing will just as easily cut cards in bad faith. Short times in cross fire and prep time inevitably limit the ability to check opponents’ evidence. These are the main factors that lead to disingenuous evidence standards, not paraphrasing. There is always a check on paraphrasing by simply asking your opponents to point to where exactly in the evidence it says what they are saying. If they can’t find it in time, ask the judge to strike the evidence. Reading evidence instead of paraphrasing doesn’t fix the problem. I’ve seen dozens of debaters read card after card with no warrants and each card is tagged “UBI good” or “UBI Bad.” 3. The judge is a check on the worst instances of paraphrasing Paraphrasing can be evaluated through the standard of reasonability. The judge is a back on cheesy or abusive takes of paraphrasing that resolves most of these problems with it. Debaters can ask specifically where in the card a warrant is stated and if it isn’t found judges should strike the evidence. This is the same way that if a debater can’t find a source for a card judges should strike the evidence. Judges clearly shouldn’t allow for warrants that aren’t articulated in the paraphrased section of the speech. If you don’t warrant out your evidence, paraphrased or not, you will lose, and the better warranted team will win. Paraphrasing theory is unnecessary Blippy unwarranted claims are their own punishment. It’s true, how many pieces are on the board doesn’t matter. That’s an argument why paraphrasing theory is unnecessary. You shouldn’t be losing to teams that make dozens of blippy unwarranted claims. If you lose to teams like that you have 99 problems but paraphrasing isn’t one. If a team beats you it’s likely not because they paraphrased it’s because they had better warranted arguments and you likely debated worse.
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
|