NFL Issues New LD Event Description, Ballot
RIPON, WI - In the fall of 2005, the Executive Council of the National Forensic League established a committee to review and make recommendations in Lincoln-Douglas debate. (Similar committees were formed for policy debate, Student Congress, and Oral Intepretation.) The committee met this past summer at the National Tournament to discuss NFL policies in each event. After the summer meeting, the committee submitted a set of recommendations for review at the 2006 NFL Summer Leadership Conference held at the NFL National Headquarters. Seventy-six district chairs and committee members, as well as the Executive Council and National Office Staff, further discussed the recommendations and other League issues during the conference. At its fall meeting, the Executive Council considered the feedback from the summer conference, all recommendations, and additional areas of concern before taking action. The following represents the new National Forensic League event description for Lincoln-Douglas debate and the wording on the new ballot. (Changes to the topic selection process and other documents regarding Lincoln-Douglas debate will be detailed in our next open discussion here on VBD.)
—
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Fred Robertson (Fremont High School, NE) [Chair]
Pam Cady Wycoff (Apple Valley High School, MN) [Council Liaison]
George Clemens (Lake Highland Preparatory School, FL)
Jenny Cook (University School, FL)
Jon Cruz (The Bronx High School of Science, NY)
Victor Jih (Archer School for Girls, CA)
Kim Jones (Bellarmine College Preparatory School, CA)
Tara McLellan (St. James School, AL)
Jim Miller (Battle Ground Academy, TN)
Steve Schappaugh (Dowling Catholic High School, IA)
Joe Vaughan (Scarsdale High School, NY)
—
LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE DESCRIPTION
Event description. Lincoln Douglas debate is designed to center on a proposition of value. A proposition of value concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. A value is an ideal held by individuals, societies, governments, etc. Debaters are encouraged to develop argumentation based upon a values perspective. To that end, no plan (or counterplan) will be offered by the debaters. In Lincoln Douglas Debate, a plan is defined by the NFL as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the affirmative nor negative side is permitted to offer a plan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a general principle. Debaters may offer generalized, practical examples or solutions to illustrate how the general principle could guide decisions.
The hallmarks of Lincoln Douglas debate include:
1) Parallel Burdens
2) Value Structure
3) Argumentation
4) Cross Examination
5) Effective Delivery
1. Parallel Burdens. No question of values can be determined entirely true or false. This is why the resolution is debatable. Therefore neither debater should be held to a standard of absolute proof. No debater can realistically be expected to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.
- Burden of proof: Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of his/her side of the resolution as a general principle. As an LD resolution is a statement of value, there is no presumption for either side.
- Burden of clash: Each debater has an equal burden to clash with his/her opponent’s position. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his/her opponent.
- Resolutional burden: The debaters are equally obligated to focus the debate on the central questions of the resolution, not whether the resolution itself is worthy of debate. Because the affirmative must uphold the resolution, the negative must also argue the resolution as presented.
2. Value Structure. The value structure (or framework) is established by the debater to serve two functions: a) to provide an interpretation of the central focus of the resolution, and b) to provide a method for the judge to evaluate the central questions of the resolution. The value structure often consists of a statement of the resolution (if affirming), definitions (dictionary or contextual), the value premise (or core value), and the value criterion (or standard). This structure is commonly but not always employed.
Definitions: The affirmative should offer definitions, be they dictionary or contextual, that provides a reasonable ground for debate. The negative has the option to challenge these definitions and to offer counterdefinitions.
Value Premise/Core Value: A value is an ideal held by individuals, societies, governments, etc. that serves as
the highest goal to be protected, respected, maximized, advanced, or achieved. In general, the debater will
establish a value which focuses the central questions of the resolution and will serve as a foundation for
argumentation.
Value Criterion/Standard: In general, each debater will present a value criterion (a standard) which the debater will use to:
- explain how the value should be protected, respected, maximized, advanced, or achieved.
- measure whether a given side or argument protects, respects, maximizes, advances, or achieves the value.
- evaluate the relevance and importance of an argument in the context of the round.
The relationship between the value premise and the criterion should be clearly articulated.
During the debate, the debaters may argue the validity or priority of the two value structures. They may accept their opponent’s value structure, prove the superiority of their own value structure, or synthesize the two.
3. Argumentation. Because Lincoln Douglas debate is an educational debate activity, debaters are obligated to construct logical chains of reasoning which lead to the conclusion of the affirmative or negative position. The nature of proof may take a variety of forms (e.g., a student’s original analysis, application of philosophy, examples, analogies, statistics, expert opinion, etc.). Arguments should be presented in a cohesive manner that shows a clear relationship to the value structure. Any research should be conducted and presented ethically from academically sound and appropriately cited sources.
4. Cross-Examination. Cross-examination should be used by the debater to clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments in the round.
5. Effective delivery. Lincoln Douglas debate is an oral communication activity that requires clarity of thought and expression. Arguments should be worded and delivered in a manner accessible to an educated non-specialist audience. This encompasses:
- Written communication: Cases and arguments should be constructed in a manner that is organized, accessible, and informative to the listener. The debater should employ clear logic and analysis supported by topical research.
-Verbal communication: The debater has the obligation to be clear, audible and comprehensible, and to speak persuasively to the listeners. Additionally, debaters should strive for fluency, expressiveness, effective word choice, and eloquence.
- Non-verbal communication: The debater should demonstrate an effective use of gestures, eye-contact, and posture.
Throughout the debate, the debaters should demonstrate civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.
—
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE PREPARATION TIME
Preparation time has been extended to four minutes.
—
LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGING GUIDELINES
1. A decision SHOULD NOT be based upon:
a. Personal bias. A judge’s preference for a side of the resolution or a topic bias should not enter into the decision. A judge must decide the round based on the arguments presented in that round. Objectivity is the primary responsibility of any judge.
b. Partiality. The judge should not be influenced by the reputation of or relationship with the debaters, schools, or coaches. If a situation arises where impartiality is in doubt, the judge has the responsibility to report this potential conflict of interest to the tab room.
c. New arguments introduced in rebuttals. The judges shall disregard new arguments introduced in the rebuttals. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the answering of arguments introduced by opponents.
2. A decision SHOULD BE based upon the consideration of any or all of the following questions:
a. Burden of proof. Which debater has proven his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle by the end of the round? No debater can realistically be expected to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. A judge should prefer quality and depth of argumentation to mere quantity of argumentation. A judge should base the decision on which debater more effectively resolved the central questions of the resolution rather than on insignificant dropped arguments.
b. Value structure. Which debater better established a clear and cohesive relationship between the argumentation and the value structure?
c. Argumentation. Which debater better presented his/her arguments with logical reasoning using appropriate support? Which debater best utilized cross-examination to clarify, challenge, or advance arguments?
d. Resolutionality. Which debater best addressed the central questions of the resolution?
e. Clash. Which debater best showed the ability to both attack his/her opponent’s case and to defend his/ her own?
f. Delivery. Which debater communicated in a more persuasive, clear, and professional manner? A judge should give weight only to those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him or her as a judge.
–
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE BALOT
The following instructions will appear on the National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas debate ballot:
1. In LD debate, the resolution to be evaluated is a proposition of value. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc. that serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question. A proposition of value concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is.
2. Each debater has the burden to prove his or her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. No debater can realistically be expected to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.
3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a student’s independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.
4. Communication in LD debate should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him/her as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.
5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his or her opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.
6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.
7. Because LD debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.
Point Scale:
Below Average: 20-21
Average: 22-23
Good: 24-26
Excellent: 27-28
Outstanding: 29-30
Under the area given for the judge to write the reason for decision, the ballot ends with, “Based on my evalation of the round, the debate was won by _______________________.”
Popularity: 2%
test
Posted from: 68.48.42.66
October 30th, 2006 17:21
I think part of the “problems” that have arisen recently in LD attributes more to the fact that coaches vote for resolutions that directly contradict the committee’s statements about what LD should look like.
Recent resolutions ask whether “violent revolution IS a just response” or prescribe empirical/narrow burdens that force affirmative debaters into a catch-22: generalize the resolution and lose b/c of their lack of specificity, or specify and lose b/c they’re conditional. I think it would be helpful for this committee to release topics which it feels comport with its vision for what LD should be.
What happens when resolutions ask what “is” but the event is supposed concern “ought?”, for example?
In general, my point is that I think the best way to guide the event is through careful screening of resolutions. If the NFL came out with “Resolved: the ends justify the means,” I think they’d get more of what they wish for in a debate than they will with voters electing some of the recent topics.
Posted from: 68.48.42.66
October 30th, 2006 17:26
Note to self: proofread.
I want to say, also, that I really like the speaker point scale. The problem, as always, is getting judges to actually use it
Posted from: 130.64.156.152
October 30th, 2006 17:29
“Burden of clash: Each debater has an equal burden to clash with his/her opponent’s position. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his/her opponent.”
How is what is related to the opponent’s speech determined? Would a 7 minute kritik automatically lose due to this? Would the links act necessarily have to indict specific arguments in the aff case or is it OK to indict the general affirmative world, which would be related insofar as the affirmative arguments presumably support it? I don’t want to see the theory debates that will result.
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
October 30th, 2006 17:46
I don’t know - an argument based on a kritik indicts the assumptions made in the affirmative, so it is related, especially if a there are links (which there should be) - there isn’t anything specifically said about the negative world being the exact opposite of the affirmative world - so it’s not a matter of YES or NO, but YES or NOT YES. Example - this topic doesn’t require a negative to support a world with no government provision of ambulances and taxes to support a 911 infrastructure - althought that might be part of the technical NO response to the resolution, the question isn’t YES or NO because those two are so far apart as to never have conflict on the same ground.
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
October 30th, 2006 17:48
BTW - No one is going to read the new description or notice the new changes beyond the four minutes of prep time and the change from a fifty point to a thirty point scale. People will still be hesitant to award lower points; some lay judges will still vote on their own biases; some judges will still vote in favor of certain schools or reputations; these are about as useful as jury instructions - they make the official process look better, but it doesn’t change the way anything actually operates.
Posted from: 24.13.82.229
October 30th, 2006 17:53
i think LD speaks should reflect policy speaks. they’re way too inflated in LD, but they dont have to be ridiculously low either. like, a 27 in policy is about a 27 for us, but it takes a lot more work to get a 28 than it does in LD. there is an issue with speaker point inflation bc judges dont want to screw ppl by giving them normal speaks, so something really should be done about that…
also, the burden of proof doesn’t make sense. if the neg has not sufficiently upheld their side of teh resolution, but has answered the aff very well and the aff doesnt uphold their side of teh resolution then how do you vote? Presumption should flip neg. you can’t just assume that something is true. if you disprove the AC then there is no rsn for the resolution to be true and should be sufficient grounds for negation.
all in all, there are some parts of this that I like and others that I disagree with. overall though, I think that debate is an activity done by students, and that it shouldn’t have constrained rules. there are so many possible arguments and ways of presenting out there that it would decrease the educational value of the activity to limit them to “traditional approaches.” It would make more sense to change the activity to not have any rules other than the time limits since any other rules would simply stifle change. the things that really have to change are what Mangus brought up earlier. We should have topics that span a semester so that we can prep them; topics should not just be written by going through a law dictionary and finding nice terms, we should be given papers on the topic, like they have in policy topics, in order to fully understand framers intent and have a better debate about it; also, the speech times definitely have to be updated since a disproportionate amount of negs win rounds due to screwing the aff with the time limits.
Posted from: 75.73.206.15
October 30th, 2006 17:59
A few questions:
Re: the value structure.
1. Can I still run a plan if I justify why it proves the resolution valid?
2. Can I run something that has a standard but no value?
3. Can I run a syllogism (lets say for this topic) that says: 1. Neg inherently unjust b/c… 2. Aff allows deadly force, solving for said injustices. Would this “violate” these rules, and, even though I’ve proven the resolution valid, I don’t have the value part…
Re: Delivery
1. As long as I’m enunciating, can I still read 300 wpm?
Re: How the round can be decided
1. Can the judge vote for something like T or a prestandards argument like an offcase?
2. What about a discursive argument, such as “they trivialize the Holocaust”?
3. “2. A decision SHOULD BE based upon the consideration of any or all of the following questions: a. Burden of proof. b. Value Structure. c. Argumentation. d. Resolutionality. e. Clash. f. Delivery.”
…
“ANY OR ALL”?!?!?!?!
Ok, thanks LD committee, I can win the burden, the value structure, argue better, be more resolutional, have better clash, but I said “uhh” a few more times than my opponent, and I lose on delivery. Super.
Posted from: 75.73.206.15
October 30th, 2006 18:02
Oh wait, scratch the plan question…
Posted from: 65.13.65.92
October 30th, 2006 18:15
4 minutes of prep time is awesome…i wonder how florida will respond to this change……
Posted from: 128.135.199.163
October 30th, 2006 18:22
so the only actual change is four minutes of prep…
Posted from: 169.232.243.165
October 30th, 2006 18:40
THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION
Posted from: 24.74.140.98
October 30th, 2006 18:46
I’m thankful that this new ballot says that the debater can “generalize” a plan for action. Tournaments in my region are still using the very, very old LD ballots that say that LDers are not responsible for plans/plan attacks; so judges are like, “plan, yay, me ignore.” I think that this new ballot will somehow cancel that effect and force judges to listen to plan arguments.
However, as lovely as presentation is good, the requirements for presentation in this ballot will only make presentation-based judges MORE presentation-based. At the local level and with many lay judges, I think that LD will lose a lot of arguments that require speed (Ks and critical positions) in favor of slow-speaking, “pretty” rounds.
Regardless, as always, there’s the issue that LDers read these ballot criteria much more thoroughly than judges…especially the ones that NEED to be reading the resolution thoroughly.
Posted from: 69.3.211.15
October 30th, 2006 18:53
Was the anti-plan rule there before?
Posted from: 24.74.140.98
October 30th, 2006 19:00
The anti-plan rule was in the version of the LD ballot with “National Forensic League” in fancy calligraphy at the top, and it’s on the longer size paper (I can’t remember what it’s called.)
Posted from: 75.73.206.15
October 30th, 2006 19:43
I find this ironic, someone please prove me wrong.
An activity such as debate is the epitome and intent of the right and practice of free speech in an educational context.
It’s governing body restricts and punishes some forms of speech, deeming them subversive and harmful.
As if plans aren’t politically or educationally valuble….
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
October 30th, 2006 19:59
chances are you will still be able to run plans where you could run them before and you won’t be able to run them where you couldn’t before. nothing’s changed.
Posted from: 75.2.148.18
October 30th, 2006 20:23
Watch jkwan and I bust out plans and cps make them stop us lol I think these should at best be guidelines not rules because the best part fo debate is arguing over what should and shouldn’t be allowed. Imposing those rules seems silly in my mind. Note that the comment above doesn’t mean I think all of the above is bad, rather certain parts seem cool and others not so cool.
Posted from: 67.171.76.6
October 30th, 2006 20:43
“More valid as a general principle.”
What kind of criteria do we have for deciding between general principles?
What distinguishes a principle from a general principle?
How should the judges compare general principles in terms of validity? What if one general principle is not mutually exclusive with the validity of another general principle?
How are general principles applied to the resolution?
Are general principles valid independent of the resolution? Or is a resolutional interpretation necessary to render the general principle valid?
What distinguishes a completely valid general principle from a partially valid general principle?
I’d really like some answers to these questions.
Posted from: 67.80.218.172
October 30th, 2006 20:47
word.
Posted from: 24.238.254.14
October 30th, 2006 20:48
I really hope judges don’t take this seriously.
Posted from: 130.49.20.89
October 30th, 2006 20:49
i think statements like “there is no presumption” and “there is no gravity” are pretty much the same.
i will also add that policy debate concerns what ought to be rather than what is. thats why every topic takes the form “x should y” and inherency exists. how can “this is debate about what ought to be” possibly justify “NO PLANS!!!”?
Posted from: 130.49.20.89
October 30th, 2006 20:54
also, i find it interesting that no plan text in policy that ive ever seen would meet the definition of plan given here as i interpret it (but this may just be my reading of what it means to be “formalized” and “comprehensive” regarding “implementation.”) loophole?
Posted from: 152.163.100.71
October 30th, 2006 20:54
This same thing was tried for college policy years ago and it failed.
Posted from: 216.27.107.129
October 30th, 2006 21:23
(a) the teacher teaches and the students are taught
(b) the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing
(c) the teacher thinks and the students are thought about
(d) the teacher talks and the students listen–meekly
(e) the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined
(f) the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply
(g) the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the actions proscribed by the teacher
(h) the teacher chooses the program content and the students (***who were not consulted***) adapt to it
(i) the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the sutdents
(j) the teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects
Posted from: 75.73.206.15
October 30th, 2006 21:39
I value the solvency achieved by my plan. My criterion is my plan. Plantext:…
Posted from: 66.65.176.179
October 30th, 2006 22:38
Some feeble attempts to answer Greg’s questions (without taking on burden of defending particular formulation of LD).
“More valid as a general principle.”
What kind of criteria do we have for deciding between general principles?
BP:Consistency (external and internal), resonance with intuitions, whether principle is workable (accessible), whether principle is interesting.
What distinguishes a principle from a general principle?
BP: Whether principle is dependent upon particular objectives, context or agent.
How should the judges compare general principles in terms of validity? What if one general principle is not mutually exclusive with the validity of another general principle?
BP: See #1 above.
How are general principles applied to the resolution?
BP: Through argumentation showing their relevance.
Are general principles valid independent of the resolution? Or is a resolutional interpretation necessary to render the general principle valid?
BP: Independently valid, but a resolutional interpretation necessary to show the principle is interesting/relevant.
What distinguishes a completely valid general principle from a partially valid general principle?
BP: Is this the difference between a completely valid principle and a partially valid principle? The degree of validity…
I’d really like some answers to these questions.
Posted from: 66.65.176.179
October 30th, 2006 22:44
Jordan G. says:
“I find this ironic, someone please prove me wrong.
An activity such as debate is the epitome and intent of the right and practice of free speech in an educational context.
It’s governing body restricts and punishes some forms of speech, deeming them subversive and harmful.
As if plans aren’t politically or educationally valuble….”
We might find it more ironic if there was a single system of free speech in the educational context that sustained over time and did not set up some standards for discussion.
As for “subversive and harmful”, this seems a strange position to take given the NFL sponsors several events, including debate specifically geared towards policy.
No system of competitive speech can encompass all possible forms of disagreement. Cage matches make for good entertainment; they do not make for constructive discourse. Time and a place for everything…
Posted from: 66.65.176.179
October 30th, 2006 22:52
Michael says:
“i think statements like “there is no presumption” and “there is no gravity” are pretty much the same.”
You could have given me a years salary, and I would not have been able to a more reflective statement of the type of thinking by those who urge a presumption. The attraction between mass and whether one speaker should start out ahead…of course!
Presumption itself, independent of policy reasons or logical considerations, is pretty repugnant. People should think about that…why does one side (whether arbitrary or assigned by the forces that be, whether gravity, religion, or politics) start out ahead when it comes to ideas…because we need a winner and loser? Our desire for a winner and loser is why we are such absolutely awful thinkers.
Gravity.
Posted from: 130.49.20.89
October 30th, 2006 23:04
i would like to congratulate bryce for, as usual, completely missing the point.
Posted from: 130.49.20.89
October 30th, 2006 23:08
actually, let me pitch a softball here because clearly im too hard to interpret. i have decided to show love to plato and write a dialogue:
BP: Gravity is really bad. Like, super bad. I mean, damn, gravity sure does suck.
MM: Yeah unfortunately gravity is a natural property of objects.
BP: But I really really want to be able to fly. Yknow, like Superman. Or a plane. Zooooom.
MM: Thats really too bad, because gravity isn’t going to go away unless you leave the planet altogether.
BP: Hmm, maybe I should try that.
Please, read into that.
Posted from: 168.7.247.178
October 30th, 2006 23:13
these new rules only matter in tournaments under the jurisdiction of the nfl, so nfl districts and nfl nationals.
hopefully other tournaments will not impose rules on what debaters can and cannot do that severely restrict creativity and innovation
with that said, i think 99% of the “new?” description is great
Posted from: 24.6.65.253
October 30th, 2006 23:32
if there’s no presumption what does the judge do when both sides are terrible and make no offensive arguments and in the judge’s eyes it’s a DEAD tie, issue a double loss? that’s not possible…
Posted from: 24.183.50.20
October 31st, 2006 00:45
This work is sweet. Thanks to the NFL committee for doing all this work.
Also - I find it Ironic that Jon is on a panel attempting to lower speaker points. It would be way easier to just tell him what 26 is, rather than him give everyone 28.5’s. ;)
But I kid.
Posted from: 147.9.41.203
October 31st, 2006 07:45
I want to know what the old one looked like. I mean, with how the old one looked we know what direction LD took. So I’m really curious how this will make a difference.
I know personally that unless I am told specifically that I have to follow these rules at a tournament I’ll be judging the way I debated for the last four years: without these rules in my mind (not necessarily fighting back against them, just not involving them).
Side note: it seems like a lot of this stuff is just about what is happening and doesn’t say things cannot happen. Like this sentence: “This structure is commonly but not always employed.”
I see the “no plan” thing but keep in mind it doesn’t say what happens if you do run a plan. It says it’s not allowed, but what’s the punishment? That means there is still meta-debate about running a plan (after it’s run) in round without breaking the rules. And I mean, any of the judges you would run a plan in front of I’m betting would listen to your argument about how there is no punishment, so it’s forbidden, but doesn’t matter.
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
October 31st, 2006 08:40
Honestly, I think there is a desire to move LD away from policy debate, but it’s being led by people who’ve never watched a policy round, or who didn’t understand everything said in round because of the speed/use of jargon/assumption of common knowledge with judge pool/what have you.
To be honest, I’ve never heard a policy 1AC in rounds I’ve judged or watched that I thought did a great job articulating the entirety of their plan (”we reserve the right to clarify” - it’s not just a pleasantry). While I wouldn’t take this one more step to say that they aren’t advocating a specific change in policy, I would say that it’s rare if not unseen for a policy debate team to specify every aspect of a policy down to every aspect of implementation, simply because there’s a reason Congressional Bills for everything, short of implementing Life Insurance Awareness Month (September), go into the hundreds of pages when it comes to explaining what the policy means, and even then it normally takes some guidance from the executive and/or court decisions in order to understand how to comply with them. Abstractly, I’d defend saying that in policy debate, they’re defining general notions of a plan to prove their side of the resolution (that something should be done now, the “shall past tense” T argument not withstanding) is true. Now this deals with only one aspect of policy plans - those including action by the USFG to create new policy - but I think to some extent it can be generalized to other areas.
So what’s the brightline between a “plan” and a general statement that could be construed as a plan but proves the resolution true?
Posted from: 128.62.219.38
October 31st, 2006 08:50
i’ve only ever seen one person run what might be considered a formal, comprehensive plan (whatever that is…) but i imagine now, ironically, people will run em all the time…because its cool to break the rules
of course you can always just claim you aren’t running a plan because your advocacy isn’t comprehensive, your analysis is actually rather lacking
Posted from: 128.62.106.242
October 31st, 2006 11:14
i like how the majority of the panel here is radically anti-theory but espouses a new doctrine that expands the avenues for running theory.
welcome to the second age of the jurisdiction voter.
what gives with this fetish for legislating rules for debate?
max stevens speaks the truth.
Posted from: 134.84.75.175
October 31st, 2006 11:47
“A judge must decide the round based on the arguments presented in that round.”
I wish this rule were enforcable…
Posted from: 209.11.48.2
October 31st, 2006 13:59
I wish I had time for a response to many of the things said as I am in the middle of a grading/recommendation writing nightmare but I do want to say a few things:
1) The one question that seems mysteriously absent from this raft of complaining was “why were the rules revised?”
Very simply, the old LD event description and rules were drafted in such a manner such that they delineated in a way to say how LD is NOT Policy rather than saying what it is in and of itself. This in many ways was the primary motivation of the group. To write a description of the event that you could give to a coach considering doing LD and they could have a reasonable semblence of understanding of what the activity was. This I believe is an important goal and one that was accomplished.
2. If you read Jon Cruz’s description above, you will see that there were MANY hands involved in this document. Please don’t ascribe the final document as the sole work of the group above as Mr. Weeks falaciously did above. I will say that although I believe strongly in the vast majority of the document, there were certain segments that got added and deleted as a result of the district chair meeting.
3.While I normally agree with much of what Max Stevens says, i think his response here is dead wrong, mostly because I don’t know exactly what he is responding to. To make a catagorical metaphorical condemnation of the entire work is a bit uncalled for. I would be interested in knowing what specifically he is having problems with, the fact that the negative ought to engage the affirmative position? the fact that judges should be informed that new arguments in the second rebuttals ought not be considered? the fact that a presentation paradigm is an acceptable method of adjudication?
Finally Max, as a teacher who does not believe that what you wrote actually applies to any decent teacher, I think you ought to be careful to catagorize us who dedicate enormous swaths of our lives to giving kids opportunities to better themselves. If you want a response narrative, look at the end of my post.
4. About presentational issues. Let’s all be honest, for many judges these issues do weigh heavily on their decision calculus. Up to now, those with this paradigm have had difficuluties articulating decisions. While I happen to not agree that (in 99% of cases) presentation is the major factor of decision, I think for those that do believe this, they now have a set of parameters to follow to be more consistent in their decisions. You may not like it when judges judge like this but I think more importantly, if they are going to judge like this that there is a clear articulatable paradigm for them to follow so you can adapt to them. This document gives them that language to tell debaters. Once again, as much as you may not like these judges THEY ARE IN EVERY POOL, that’s a fact.
Just a few quick things.
reminder…1,2 and 4 are not meant as a response to any posts so please don’t say I am missing the point.
Response narrative:
What Teachers Make by Taylor Mali
He says the problem with teachers is, “What’s a kid going to learn
from someone who decided his best option in life was to become a teacher?”
He reminds the other dinner guests that it’s true what they say about
teachers:
Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.
I decide to bite my tongue instead of his
and resist the temptation to remind the other dinner guests
that it’s also true what they say about lawyers.
Because we’re eating, after all, and this is polite company.
“I mean, you¹re a teacher, Taylor,” he says.
“Be honest. What do you make?”
And I wish he hadn’t done that
(asked me to be honest)
because, you see, I have a policy
about honesty and ass-kicking:
if you ask for it, I have to let you have it.
You want to know what I make?
I make kids work harder than they ever thought they could.
I can make a C+ feel like a Congressional medal of honor
and an A- feel like a slap in the face.
How dare you waste my time with anything less than your very best.
I make kids sit through 40 minutes of study hall
in absolute silence. No, you may not work in groups.
No, you may not ask a question.
Why won’t I let you get a drink of water?
Because you’re not thirsty, you’re bored, that’s why.
I make parents tremble in fear when I call home:
I hope I haven’t called at a bad time,
I just wanted to talk to you about something Billy said today.
Billy said, “Leave the kid alone. I still cry sometimes, don’t you?”
And it was the noblest act of courage I have ever seen.
I make parents see their children for who they are
and what they can be.
You want to know what I make?
I make kids wonder,
I make them question.
I make them criticize.
I make them apologize and mean it.
I make them write, write, write.
And then I make them read.
I make them spell definitely beautiful, definitely beautiful, definitely
beautiful
over and over and over again until they will never misspell
either one of those words again.
I make them show all their work in math.
And hide it on their final drafts in English.
I make them understand that if you got this (brains)
then you follow this (heart) and if someone ever tries to judge you
by what you make, you give them this (the finger).
Let me break it down for you, so you know what I say is true:
I make a goddamn difference! What about you?
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
October 31st, 2006 14:35
John Taylor Gatto (Max Stevens) vs. Educational Establishment (Joe Vaughn)
And the battle continues… anyone want to wager that there won’t be a resolution?
Posted from: 129.116.23.50
October 31st, 2006 15:17
I think it is a really big mistake for the NFL to try and distance Ks from LD. Often they have a lot of merit, and if they don’t they should be easy to defeat. I also think that if they want to give the Neg a burden of proof they need to word the resolutions differently because they do not have one now with current wordings.
Posted from: 75.73.206.15
October 31st, 2006 15:24
Dang it, when will I run my “womyn” gendered language K?
Posted from: 169.229.32.138
October 31st, 2006 17:10
i admire the attempts of the committee to create a positive definition of LD, and they succeed admirably in a number of areas. however, i think that some parts–especially section 2–miss the mark pretty hard.
the v/c model, more than anything else, is the root of the theoretical poverty that plagues this activity. it has a few huge problems:
a) it’s not a coherent way of assessing value claims because those claims typically involve multiple conflicting and overlapping metrics of evaluation. it also ignores the fact that the implications of analogous value claims can vary hugely in degree and magnitude, making it ridiculous to prioritize one class of value claims without regard to degree as the v/c model so often does. (i think this answers back bryce’s defense of the model a dozen posts up or so)
b) because of established conventions discouraging the use of multiple standards, debaters routinely use the criterion to exclude huge swathes of argumentation. many argue that this gives rounds more focus and clarity, but in my experience, it makes many rounds ridiculous because a couple of conceded arguments can lead to absolutely counterintuitive value assesments. any theory of assesment that allows debaters to ignore problems like nuclear war and genocide based on, say, the inviolability of property rights, is absolutely ridiculous and educationally bankrupt. because of the ability to exclude arguments, debaters also get to avoid doing in-depth weighing, since they just extend defense on every argument and win on one tiny argument that meets the standard (though i will admit that this is primarily due to the fact that LD doesn’t follow an offense-defense model rather than because of the v/c model).
these are both pretty big problems, and there are others the v/c model faces (cf the devoid and hanes article in rostrum if you want more).
also, while i’m not as enthusiastic about plans in LD as some people might be, i do think that the focus on affirming the resolution as a general principle rather than defending a specific and textual instantiation of the resolution creates huge problems in terms of articulating counteradvocacies, explaining why debaters are topical/nontopical, etc. again, i will concede that this is greatly, greatly exacerbated by the fact that ld resolutions are worded terribly and that there is a consensus (for whatever reason) that topicality is an issue of precisely interpreting the resolution rather than of equitably dividing ground between both sides within LD. i guess what i’m trying to say is that, while the theoretical problems of LD are far outside the scope of any proposal the NFL could put forth, this one is certainly not without its flaws.
oh, i like 4 minutes of prep, but i hope it will be used to construct rebuttal strategies and make better/more thoughtful arguments, rather than making more blippy arguments and going block hunting.
Posted from: 216.27.107.129
October 31st, 2006 17:48
mr vaughn- of course, i mean no disrespect.
i only intended to incite a little spark around the issue of who’s debating for whom. i sincerely apologize if you took offense to my characterization of bad teachers, which in my personal opinion definately does not contain you or others who would be implicated. i only meant to characterize a particular mentality that i think is worth charactarizing for the sake of guiding our discussion on the goals of documents like this and debate/education in general.
i think that your response hits to the heart of what i beleive to be the role of teachers in this activity- to provide the direction and movement toward ideals that we agree are good for the activity.
on the other hand, what makes debate unique from other activities, in my opinion, is that it cannot be and is not directed completely from above. the newer trends in debate, or the resurgence of old (any change whatsoever) comes from students. it should be checked by the input and advice of teachers, but not to the extent that the relationship becomes one of antagonism and provocation.
it seems to me that establishing particular prohibitions that single out more threatening/liberating styles and theories on the acticity provokes an antagonism that teachers have the obligation to prevent. i think students will naturally lash out against the “establishment” or teachers or wahtever, and that of coruse (for this very reason) teachers should have the authority to step in and regulate.
however- and this is the nuance that matters- the teachers are, in the particular situation we are dealing with- faced with two problems that I think are being handled improperly
1. the “establishment” or structures of authority that govern (*and make possible- financially, e.g.) the activity are getting younger, more decentralized, and, all around, we are noticing a proliferation of independent, unaffiliated, and *non*traditional modes of debate itself (from round robins to experiments w/ prep and cx, speech times, etc.)…
the result of this is that it is getting increasingly more unclear what the definition of “good” or “national circuit” debate is in relation to the goals and ideals of “teachers” defined by the nfl, coaches, and other organizations….
and
2. the relationship has become somewhat antagonsitic, whereby debaters are almost being encouraged to ardently defend their interpretation and style of debate. To fight for it, criticize judges in the name of it, coaches (particularly those who are older, and deserve more respect, even) and also win tournaments because of it (insofar as judges and coaches are also a lot of younger and more progressive college kids today, too).
all in all, debate camps, coaches, and judges face a problem of identifying themselves in philosophy, paradigms, and action as defenders of particular ideals in debate, forcing an artificial antagonism
on the one hand, it can be argued that this leads to teachers who conflate authority in the profession of education with authority on the “truth” of the goals of debate as a particular and unique part of education broadly
and, on the other hand, debaters see a need to be more revolutionary, upitty, anti-old-school, etc, often at the expense of public image, private spirit, and the legitimacy of the activity.
i don’t really have conclusions on this stuff- but i think these issuses underly a document that has its own particular problems that may or may not be worth discussing depending on our resoloution of these more fundamental issues.
Posted from: 71.71.236.75
October 31st, 2006 18:51
I am a little surprised, and even saddened, with the fact that how Lincoln Douglas took a turn for the drastic now. Sure we had to stay away from policy, but some of these points are simply too much.
As an example, why does there have to be a value criterion? I was perfectly satisfied with the burden structure, or even with straight refutations. In fact, I was also satisfied with theory and plans - simply because theory and plans are essential to the debate world, and they augment the educational value of the round. Just because there are other options of argumentation available doesn’t mean there is a certain hierarchy.
I also agree with the analysis that by creating restrictions, we may actually get a system which is detrimental to this purpose (43).
I must agree, Lincoln Douglas is not policy, or as my coach calls it - “maverick policy”. It is a seperate event. But certain aspects have assimilated, and I would argue for the better. These new rules are a bit too much.
Posted from: 130.49.20.89
October 31st, 2006 19:23
alex smith gets +150 points for thinking that LD needs a more offense/defense based approach.
Posted from: 205.188.116.204
October 31st, 2006 19:51
The document does not mandate the use of the traditional value structure.
“This structure is commonly but not always employed”
The document was setting out what is presently used in the vast majority of rounds. There is no specific mandate for the structure. there is a statement of what is commonly employed by many debaters. A closer reading will show that the value structure has two purposes
“The value structure (or framework) is established by the debater to serve two functions: a) to provide an interpretation of the central focus of the resolution, and b) to provide a method for the judge to evaluate the central questions of the resolution”
So everything that everyone now runs as framework args, be they burdens or syllogisms are fair game. The only specific mechanism specified is the generic V/VC since it is most common. Remember that this document isn’t a description of circuit debate but of what is happening all across the country at all levels. I think it would be difficult to argue that this isn’t happening. IF the issue is OUGHT it happen, then that’s a different question. There is nothing in this document that precludes some alternate structure as long as it
1) gives the judge an evaluative mechanism
2) highlights or in some way seeks to address a central question of the resolution
I don’t see how this part is controversial or overly limiting or prohibitive. The committee took special pains to try to not constrain or confine.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
October 31st, 2006 20:33
i don’t really see any enforcement mechanism in the rewording, and i find it perfectly acceptable. even if you have a problem like mr. max stevens does with it, then who’s to stop you? if the idea of being a badass like mangus or weeks or diehl is so appealing, then do it, and screw the oppressive mechanisms that try and stop you. in a very traditional move, i offer a quote to sum up my opinion; as FDR once spoke, “the only thing to fear is fear itself”. if you want to fear the rules, by all means, complain and kick and scream, but they don’t matter one lick to me so long as i am able to continue debating and being a part of this community.
Posted from: 70.156.165.202
October 31st, 2006 23:20
“i don’t really see any enforcement mechanism in the rewording”
True. At least no formal enforcement mechanism. But there have been and still are factions of judges who resent certain styles and methods in LD and have wanted to expel and reduce their use. Due to LD’s previously sparse framework, they did not have much in the way of official mandate to prohibit and punish certain debate methods, aside from the “no plan; no plan attacks” stipulation. It was an early, socially understood but mostly unwritten trend that LD shirk allegedly Policy tactics. When that social understanding started to dissipate, the “progressives” accused the “traditionalists” of being biased and partial critics. Since the prior LD directions were so brief and general, who was to say what methods were officially allowed? Let the event evolve! Well, now the long-awaited revisions have come, and now groups of critics can punish and disapprove of methods that they begrudge. They no longer have an obligation to be “non-intervenionist” towards all tactics and styles because the rules now explicitly disallow and condemn some of those styles.
That’s probably not going to matter a whole lot to the followers of debate liberation theology and it’s probably going to get old explaining, “because the NFL said so!” But adherents to the rules can always charge that dissidents are no different than rogue judges who like policy debaters to do oratory or interp in their rounds, event rules be damned.
Posted from: 169.229.32.138
November 1st, 2006 00:24
joe–
you’re right that i didn’t read that sentence, but i think the fact that it’s hidden away in a single sentence at the bottom without being highlighted in some way undercuts the force it should have, especially because it is wildly inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the “guidelines”.
(i also think that that exchange of arguments instantiates the problem with using single lines of analysis to circumvent multiple substantial objections to that argument. i would contend that there’s a significant enough “risk of the link”, so to speak, to make the problems with the model a concern)
Posted from: 66.108.89.208
November 1st, 2006 05:11
I haven’t had an opportunity to post in more detail, but I want to emphasize two things Joe stresses: first off, while I believe strongly in the considerable majority of what the document states (and I would imagine the rest of the committee does, given our consensus on most of the issues), certain parts of the document were added (or removed) as a result of the district chair meeting.
Also, while Alex’s point about the overall “tone” of the document as opposed to the “disclaimer” in the value/standards section could be valid, a good number of people who we showed the document to — notably more “traditional” coaches — *immediately* noticed the exception. Some took issue with it, especially since the document does *not* ban case-specific kritiks or other alternative forms of argumentation. I suspect that those who object to values/standards models might immediately zone in on their inclusion in the rules, while people who strongly support them might immediately note that they are not explicitly required.
There was, despite the suggestions of some in the comments section, a diverse group of coaches behind the initial drafts of these documents, and a large group of district chairs who were involved in their creation as well. Consensus was the only way to make a document of this scope work. Given that people with some very different (sometimes conflicting) views on the theory and practice of the activity were able to come together and produce a document, I’d think there’s room for different viewpoints within the framework provided by said rules.
Much of what is in these documents, I think, actually clarifies things that are common practice (such as the role of the judge, clarity as a requirement for flowing, etc.) that were never outlined, and thus, never consistent.
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
November 1st, 2006 08:41
People who complain about lack of an enforcement mechanism - have you ever seen judging in a boxing bout or MMA fight? I mean it’s a problem inherent to judging anything subjective as a whole. Ironically, me and Lakeville coach Andy Charrier have had this conversation more than once - judging is fairly simple in boxing and MMA - there’s a 10 point must system - the winner gets 10 points for the round, the opponent gets 9 points or less, unless there’s a rare occassion where the round is a draw. In a 5 round title fight recently, a fairly well respected referee (whom I’ve met, and the guy isn’t an idiot) gave the fight a 50-48, meaning he scored 3 rounds out of 5 as a tie; this was after he said on a radio interview that “the spirit of the judging rules is that only one round in a thousand should be a tie”. Color commentator Joe Rogan didn’t help matters, when, on hearing of the decision, said “that man should be shot” for making such a stupid decision. Needless to say, the judge is still employed by the athletic comissions of multiple states.
You want objectivity and fairness? Find a machine to judge debate (I’m sure Diebold is always looking for new markets), or flip a coin. IN ANYTHING ELSE, JUDGING WILL INHERENTLY BE SUBJECTIVE.
Posted from: 169.232.243.155
November 1st, 2006 12:07
we dont need no education
we dont need no thought control
no dark sarcasm in the classroom
teacher leave those kids alone
Posted from: 129.115.251.217
November 1st, 2006 12:15
Having graduated and seen how debate is from the assistant coaching perspective and teaching at camp, I’ve learned a bit more about the activity than I knew when I finished competing in it. That said I must champion the NFL for making the changes to the ballot and the prep time rules.
I think that some of the people drawing criticism against the NFL are missing the point of the change.
A few issues:
1) value/criterion model
Alex brings up some of the problems of the criterion by saying that it can allow impacts like nuke war or genocide to be excluded in light of objectively more miniscule impacts like my right to free speech is gone. This would not make the activity educatioanlly bankrupt. Instead, I have found that debaters that understand the value/criterion strucutre coherently use that as the foundation for learning many other aspects of debate. One important aspect that the criterion introduces is forms of weighing. The NFL release doesn’t discourage the use of weighing and I think adherence to the proper value/criterion structure will allow further weighing. I think saying that we are bankrupting the educational value of debate is a bit of an overexaggerated claim. Once the basic VC model can be understood then weighing can be introduced to allow for the “degree” of impacts to be evaluated on the basis of a single criterion.
2) the issue of affirming
Alex talks about affirming on general principle as problematic because of the poor wording and confusion of burdens, but I think there is a simple solution to this problem. Every year there are topics on the new list that people like and dislike. If you like the topic then you should advocate voting for it. If you have a problem with the way the topic selection is done then advocate a solution to this. People raise the issue of how topics selected most are given to Nationals and so forth. I don’t know the statistics off the top of my head but Ms. King told me that a huge perecentage of coaches do not vote for topics at all. I’m sure that a website like VBD or lddebate.org should be more than enough for starting to create voting blocks to pick resolutions people can generally agree are good topics.
3) Do people actually use the NFL ballot?
It may be that most of the tournaments I’ve judged at are in Texas, but do most tournaments use the NFL ballot outside of the state? In Texas, we have the Texas Forensice Association that governs the majority of tournaments and it has its own ballot that is used at most TFA tournaments. Bid tournaments like Greenhill, St. Marks, Grapevine, and others are frequently using their own ballot as opposed to the NFL ballot. So I do question the effeectiveness of the new ballot, but again, I champion the NFL for rising to the job of reinforcing its view of debate as guidelines for beginners and coaches. Some of the varsity could benefit from understanding the roots of LD if they are not already familiar with them.
Just some thoughts.
Posted from: 129.116.12.183
November 1st, 2006 12:17
thank you for that completely irrelevant story, michael boyle.
Posted from: 207.28.198.27
November 1st, 2006 12:44
Joe/Jon/etc-
I think I remember there being talk about changing the process for choosing topics a bit. Did anything come out of that?
Ernie
Posted from: 24.22.23.166
November 1st, 2006 14:47
a voice from the ether (Eugene, Or);
the greatest American Anarchist, Thoreau, said: “Government, what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instance losing its integrity; it has not the vitality and force of a single living man. Law never made man a whit more just; and by means of their respect for it, even the well disposed are daily made agents of injustice.”
from ‘a manifesto for judging debate’:
“to some of us,
the rules themselves do not matter; it is what we choose to do in debate rounds as debaters and judges. Resist, Defend, Justify, Deconstruct, or Ignore the rules. we would argue that good debate or bad debate doesn’t emerge from rules or statist institutional education or it’s opposition in critical theory. we decide what good and bad debate are every round. the debaters help us decide. and we will continue deciding based upon whatever arguments are most persuasive to us. you could run a plan, a counterplan, a disad, a kritik, a critique, topicality, a kritik implication to topicality, in-round discourse, narrative, performance, irony, concede, be an activist, read cards in cross-ex, poetry, or do something totally cool that no one’s ever seen before, or defend a value proposition and weigh arguments through a criterion. if someone questions the validity of your method to win the round, defend it and persuade us to vote for you. appeal to the NFL rules, the bible or lyrics from a dead prez track. we leave it up to the debaters to determine good and bad debate, based on their persuasiveness and ‘justness’ in rounds. and we’ll take the heat when the debaters fail to do this adequately, and then complain to us that we intervened in a round where we said we were judging as a blank slate (but tragically no one wrote on us!).
to the judges horrified by the above statement, we do not claim to have a pure tabula rasa approach; all judges prefer (or are familiar with) certain methods of winning debate rounds. we express our preferences for good debate just as all judges do when asked. we simply do not actively discourage particular methods of winning debate rounds in order to limit the possible methods that debaters could use in round. all options should be available. nonetheless, we brutally reserve the right to explain our distaste or prejudice after those arguments have been run, thereby causing debaters to either satisfy our preferences in the future or challenge our prejudices and (god forbid) change our minds.
for the record, we don’t know who we are, but there are more than one of us. we invite all judges to a continuing discourse on the activity of debate with their debaters, coaches, friends and schools.”
on a personal note, i’m sure i voted for a theory argument made by prashant about ‘what debate should be’ that i totally disagreed with. but his opponent didn’t make my argument, and i voted for prashant, and then i explained that i thought the warrant in his argument sucked. it’s not that i failed to wield my disciplinary might as the judge to smote ‘bad debate’, but that his opponent had failed to put as much thought, time or skillful delivery into what did make ‘good debate’. when i leave it up to debaters to decide why we debate and what is good about certain types of debate, i’m usually disappointed. but to deny the debaters the fair chance to do it themselves first is to deny them the activity. it is to treat them as computer programs without self-reflexivity, running the tactical software of whatever current band of educators dominates the activity. i’m not suggesting that the NFL is the master control program and that max stevens is tron (although that’d be a pretty tight analogy), just that closing the door on the ballot story, the decision rule, the whatever you want to call it, is to close the door on what i feel is the basis for the activity of debate. i don’t think the new event description does this, but i’m sure there are judges who have and will use it that way.
joe, i got your back and so does max. i think your reaction was appropriate and inspiring. it’s too easy to generalize the conflict max brings up; as if you and max make an absurd pedagogical dialectic, each bristling at the others methodology and each hopelessly dependent on the others version of education to define your own by. that’s not the case. we all agree, i believe; critical thinkers need to learn skills to think critically and communicate those thoughts. how they “should” learn those skills is still very much up for debate. but everyone in this activity agrees on certain fundamentals. let’s keep cultivating young minds to ask “why?” and “what does that actually mean?” and “is there a copier around here” and all the other lovely and absurd questions we hear constantly from debaters.
in the end, i’m with Rebar: world keeps on spinnin’, and i’m glad to be here.
Posted from: 66.208.26.115
November 1st, 2006 16:18
Nothing of “value” to say (worst pun ever) except that Joe, Max, and Wesley make me love debate — and that Taylor Mali is a fantastic poet (I recommend reading some of his other work).
Posted from: 68.158.173.26
November 1st, 2006 18:54
..has anyone thougth about the fact that all that is going to be on the ballot is going to severly limit judge comment space? looking at the actual layout of the new ballot, it looks like theres a max of 2 ins of judge comment space, and thats split between the aff and neg. does anyone else thing thats going to be extremly annoying? especially at tournements that discourage oral critiques…*sigh*
Posted from: 66.65.176.179
November 1st, 2006 18:54
Michael is so fun to talk with.
To recap:
Michael compares people who think there ought to be no presumption in competitive debate to people who don’t believe in gravity.
I question such a move. I believe in both gravity (or more properly, believes that there is an attractive force between bodies of mass), and also believe that when having a philosophical argument, one side should not necessarily have the presumption. I believe there is nothing about the natural world (or for that matter, the nature of logical argumentation) that requires one side to have a presumption. I would not say the same thing about, you know, the universe and attractive forces between objects.
Michael is trying to say something like “People who disagree with me about the standards for argument are so stupid that they believe the moon is made of cheese.”
Michael then writes: “I would like to congratulate bryce for, as usual, completely missing the point.”
Perhaps fearing that his little rejoinder does not fully elucidate the full depth of his intellectual vigor, he immediately follows it shortly with this exchange, meant to be written as a socratic dialogoue:
“BP: Gravity is really bad. Like, super bad. I mean, damn, gravity sure does suck.
MM: Yeah unfortunately gravity is a natural property of objects.
BP: But I really really want to be able to fly. Yknow, like Superman. Or a plane. Zooooom.
MM: Thats really too bad, because gravity isn’t going to go away unless you leave the planet altogether.
BP: Hmm, maybe I should try that.”
Now, no where in this little exchange does Michael explain why descriptive belief in the natural behavior of objects is like a normative belief in the fair rules for an argument.
Nowhere does Michael say, nor could he say, that presumption in an argument is a natural property or force of the world. If Michael did say that, then he would be saying something almost unbelievably stupid. I don’t think Michael is that stupid. I think he just wants to call people who disagree with him stupid, and like many people, can not see beyond his own hyperbole and misplaced smugness to realize he is saying nothing.
This is what passes for argumentation today. Even worse, this is what passes for succesful argumentation today.
Read into that.
Posted from: 66.65.176.179
November 1st, 2006 19:03
asmitty’s comments, which are consistently exceptional on this site, do misstate something I said, which I feel the need to correct. Asmitty says:
“the v/c model, more than anything else, is the root of the theoretical poverty that plagues this activity. it has a few huge problems:
a) it’s not a coherent way of assessing value claims because those claims typically involve multiple conflicting and overlapping metrics of evaluation. it also ignores the fact that the implications of analogous value claims can vary hugely in degree and magnitude, making it ridiculous to prioritize one class of value claims without regard to degree as the v/c model so often does. (i think this answers back bryce’s defense of the model a dozen posts up or so)”
I think asmitty probably overstates the problem of the vp/vc structure (probably drastically overstates it), but since I am no fan of the model, I won’t bother to defend it. Asmitty is apparently referring to my responses to Greg, which were not intended as a defense of a particular model in debate (hence, the qualifier at the beginning), but instead to suggest that there are a multitude of ways of evaluating competiting principles. In fact, we do so all the time, without the need for a vp/vc system. I think I agree with asmitty’s characterizations of trying to reduce disagreement over principles to a single metrix, but I will disagree with him that such discussion over which principle to prioritize is doomed. If it is, forget not just debate, throw in human thought as well. It is what we do as thinkers. Or at least some of us. Others of us talk about gravity.
Posted from: 66.65.176.179
November 1st, 2006 19:18
And just in case there are actually people who take Michael seriously, it is useful to remember that gravity does not disappear just because you leave a planet…
(I am so sick of being polite to people who have displayed nothing except their own insecurities and inadequacies on this site).
Posted from: 66.108.89.208
November 1st, 2006 19:56
Hi Katie — I think, though I can’t guarantee, that the real ballot will be legal-sized and thus have longer comment space. (I was on the ballot subcommittee and we made note of that during the meetings.)
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
November 1st, 2006 20:02
I love people who respond to my comments under the name anonymous - after all, I am such a vindictive person that you know I’ll find a way to retaliate were I to ever figure out who the one person on the internet who chose to possibly insult me. I’m still waiting to hear this person say something topical; heck, to say something… But I digress, and add the anonymous person to my enemies list, which also includes such greats as TBA, TBD, and, as Slashdot puts it, Anonymous Coward. I’m not actually convinced that Anonymous here and Anonymous Coward aren’t one in the same.
I don’t know how this issue of presumption comes up because if it does exist, you have to figure out which side is more of a change from the status quo and which side represents the status quo. This isn’t always as simple as affirming=change; I’m thinking of a topic my freshman year about National Intelligence taking precedence over Civil Liberties, and in that case I’d say if we were to use a policymaking framework, I’d say aff has presumption since in the status quo it seems National Intelligence does take precedence over conflicting claims of civil liberties (although to set up a base for either side having presumption would require one side or the other to sufficiently argue that they are the status quo, and I don’t know anywhere I’ve seen that established well). Therefore, the concept that the affirmative always leads to a change and therefore the negative has the status quo advantage of presumption doesn’t transfer itself into LD; some people seem to think it correlates in that barring all else you vote neg on presumption, but you’re voting on a different sort of presumption - in this case, if a statement isn’t proven true by the affirmative, and it isn’t proven not true by the negative, you assume on presumption that the statement isn’t true. I don’t know that there’s really any ballot description way out of this - if both sides are so evenly matched and bad that they fail to make a case for their side being better than the others, presumption in LD becomes a nice way of saying I don’t see anything here in this round I can vote on. Maybe a double loss? Maybe it really is time for intervention at that point to find something instead of a generic “neg by presumption” statement? What do I do if both sides fail to present a winning advocacy of any sort - I guess I’ll just find some other reason to default to one side or another; maybe some sort of intellectual presumption that things are false unless proven true, or maybe I try to figure out what the status quo is; or maybe I try to find out, as RJ puts it, who “the lesser of the two evils” are if there are no better debaters.
Posted from: 129.116.12.183
November 1st, 2006 20:03
is the converse of this statement:
“Presumption itself, independent of policy reasons or logical considerations, is pretty repugnant.”
that presumption based on logical considerations is not repugnant?
Posted from: 74.64.86.215
November 1st, 2006 20:12
What about speed? The new format gives specific guidelines for delivery. To reiterate a question above …if I speak fast but articulate, do I lose because of ‘ineffective delivery’, or is there really no change in the matter?
Posted from: 205.188.116.204
November 1st, 2006 20:22
Ernie,
You are right that the process for selecting topics was part of the work of the committee. As far as I know, that stuff was approved by the NFL Exec committee as well. Let me check on that. I’ll happily post what I have as long as I know that it is actually going to happen.
Posted from: 205.188.116.204
November 1st, 2006 20:27
Matt,
If you notice, the document essentially says what the practice is now. You’ll notice that in the delivery section the phrase “to the listener” appears all over the place. What the document is trying to say is adapt to the judge’s preference for such things. So not much change there, just an articulation of what is hopefully your present practice.
Posted from: 68.224.20.3
November 1st, 2006 20:29
Even if you articulate perfectly when you read fast and the judge is able to make out every single word, the issue of comprehending the argument before another argument begins still exists.
Posted from: 71.147.23.103
November 1st, 2006 20:39
Even though I don’t agree with some of Jenn Miller’s ballots (e.g. Marx outrounds), I like her judging paradigm. Quoting:
“In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don’t think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn’t do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.”
I absolutely agree. It is meaningless for one debater to say “My standard is justice” and another to say “My standard is equity.” To which I say: C’mon– debate the resolution willya??
Having a “value” is neither required nor integral to arguing the truth of the resolution.
Posted from: 67.166.112.94
November 1st, 2006 20:43
i do believe this is one of the best things to happen to debate since sliced bread. i am way excited about the extra minute of prep, and even more excited about how they word everthing on the ballot to help a lay judge (something i see a lot of on my local curcuit). i would like to thank any and all who had a part in this.
Posted from: 66.65.176.179
November 1st, 2006 20:43
John Lewis writes:
“is the converse of this statement:
“Presumption itself, independent of policy reasons or logical considerations, is pretty repugnant.”
that presumption based on logical considerations is not repugnant?”
As a logical matter, it is not the converse, but you can definitely infer from my statement that presumptions based on logical considerations might not be repugnant. One side should not be required to prove a negative. A presumption there seems appropriate. For policy considerations, if the state wants to punish someone, there should be a presumption against that (burden of proof in criminal cases). But having a “presumption” just for the sake of presumption is an example of limited thinking at best, and a tendency towards authoritarianism at its worst. It is perfectly possible to have two people argue a proposition without either side having a presumption. The weird concern about having a tie-breaker for the particularly indecisive judge is a red herring. The tie-breaker concern goes to which debater should win and which should lose (competitive concerns), NOT which side of the proposition has more merit (truth concerns). Presumption doesn’t speak to tie-breakers, it speaks to the substance and merit of the propositional debate….
Posted from: 69.174.99.115
November 1st, 2006 21:13
As a District Chair at the conference this summer, the chairs from across the nation widely supported this clarification of the rules and the LD ballot. Nearly 1,000 years of experience. Damn, that’s a lot of experience of people who have been deeply invested in the event and see the current issues in LD and utterly believe that the work of the committee was bang-on accurate and well-reasoned, well-balanced.
The committee did an incredible job and should be thanked for their tremendous work.
Posted from: 24.5.194.121
November 1st, 2006 22:20
bryce is right that there’s a fair degree of hyperbole in my assesment of LD’s theoretical state. i also will admit that i didn’t edit my post before submitting it; if i had, i probably would have made it more clear that i think the bigger problem is with certain conventions (the lack of offense-defense and precision-oriented ways of interpreting resolutions, to name two of the biggest) rather than any institutional or structural problem. however, even if the degree of the problem is overstated, i still think that it’s a problem, and one which i haven’t heard a coherent reply to.
as for the tone of the document, i think that both my reading and the reading of the coaches that jon alludes to are colored by their theoretical predispositions about the validity of the vp/vc model. regardless, i will concede that there are many ways to interpret that sentence in the larger context of the document, and that, as always, it will be up to judges to incorporate the model, as they see it, into their paradigm.
Posted from: 130.49.20.89
November 2nd, 2006 00:43
bryce,
i am really unimpressed by reply. i would have liked it more if it included a dialogue, or maybe even some poetry. you are right that gravity exists everywhere, not just on earth - although for someone so concernced with science, you don’t seem like you’d be too fond of parsimony (science’s direct equivalentof presumption). regardless, you should consider the leaving the planet line a bit of creative license used only to suggest that i would like the debate world a little bit better if you weren’t around.
love always,
michael
Posted from: 130.49.20.89
November 2nd, 2006 00:47
that first line should read “by YOUR reply.” don’t want to offend those sticklers for precision.
Posted from: 67.171.76.6
November 2nd, 2006 01:04
The new rules for LD debate, legislated by an NFL committee, specify that the burden of proof that the debater takes up is to demonstrate that their position is “more valid as a general principle.” This phrase is extremely problematic and should be extricated from the event description.
A. First, let’s investigate what the word ‘general’ in ‘general principle’ means. How is a general principle different from a regular old principle? Two possible interpretations are:
1. One possibility is that the principle is not specific to an agent, institution or objective. Two objections ought to be noted here.
a. Resolutions, such as the recent one about whether a just state ought to provide health care, specify an agent, specify an institution and specify an objective. This would create contradictory burdens.
b. What we recognize as generally true is not in agreement; specifically, we often identify things as general that are actually specific as general because of the cultural system in which we were raised (individual rights are not valued in traditional, East Asian belief systems, whereas we presume them to be general since we come from the West—this would seem to be a common bias, as judges readily accept value structures that assume that individual rights have value, without a justification provided for why this is the case).
2. A general principle is a principle that is universalizable, i.e. applicable in all cases. Thus, the connection that the judge evaluates is the connection between universals and their realization in a particular scenario (the world in which we test the resolution). In order for the judge to make any comparisons between general principles (which is what cases have to be with these new rules), the judge must be able to perceive real connections between universals.
a. Wilfrid Sellars argues in “Language, Rules and Behavior” (Pure Pragmatics and Possible Worlds: The Early Essays of Wilfrid Sellars, ed. By Jeffrey E. Sicha) that we must not have the capacity to perceive real connections between universals because if we did, we would be forced to invoke the paradox of committing ourselves to the existence of non-actualized possibilities. The objection goes as follows:
i. To say that there is a real connection between universals, for example that A requires B, is to say that there are no possible worlds in which there exist non-B A’s. Similarly, one could say that A requires the non-existence of Bs. This implies that there are no possible worlds in which there exist any A’s in conjunction with B’s. [This is what a mutually exclusive debate advocacy would say. A is what a just government does. B is what a just government does. A cannot exist in conjunction with B. Therefore, the positions clash.]
ii. Sellars: “If the connection between A and B is synthetic [that is, it really does connect notions that are otherwise independent of each other], then it is logically possible that there should be a world in which there are non-B A’s. Why shouldn’t this logically possible world be the actual one?” (147)
iii. The rationalist can respond by arguing that it is a matter of fact that there are no non-B A’s. The notion that there are non-B A’s is non-sensical because there does, in fact, exist no possible world, to our knowledge, in which non-B A’s exist. A real connection between universals is precisely the non-existence of certain possible worlds.
iv. Sellars responds that: if no non-B A’s exist (B always implies A, and vice-versa), it is not possible to speak of apprehending connections between universals. Therefore, a real connection between universals cannot be the possible object of intuition or awareness. (The judge can never compare general principles if general principles are taken to be universalizable.) Moreover, real connections between universals are not actual or possible sense-data. (The judge could never perceive these connections in order to make such a comparison.) What would one be aware of in being aware of a universal? No universal exemplifies itself, so to be aware of red is not to be aware of something red.
b. One can here add the following more common-sense objection: We do not have the capacity to perceive what is universal (or what is general, for that matter), because we are limited by our perspective. To know what is universal is to know what is true of all possible worlds, even though we may have no direct experiential knowledge of these worlds. To say that one knows what is universal is to take the perspective of God. Just as philosophers cannot do this, debate judges ought not do this.
B. Next, let’s examine what ‘principle’ means. The etymology of principles goes as follows:
”fundamental truth” — > “conduct, behavior” — > “moral rule”
In Greek, principium from which principle derives is something that is primary, basic or fundamental. We see the last definition as “moral rule” in the idea of taking a “principled stance” implying a stance that is righteous or moral.
I would venture to say that it is difficult, if not impossible, to have debate about principles because principles point to things that we hold to already be fundamentally true. This is precisely what first principles are, or moral beliefs are. This is precisely why we avoid having debates about abortion. The following problems would seem to arise:
1. Unconscious bias – it is probable that, to some extent, we are not aware of what our first principles are precisely because they are so fundamental.
2. Debate cannot be evaluated since first principles are unjustifiable, i.e. they are fundamental premises upon which we base our thought, which we must assume at the onset. They form the basis of axiomatic systems, through which we can make deductions.
3. Many principles are not mutually exclusive, so it seems likely that debates would be irresolvable, or would consist of exactly the types of debates that the authors of the rules would want to avoid (no clash, talk about random shit).
C. One should also note that the word ‘valid’ is used instead of ‘true’ in the events description. I would presume that the panel wanted to avoid talking about truth to avoid invoking the pre-dispositions of the judge, since these ought to be excluded from the evaluation of the round. While this may involve good intentions, it certainly doesn’t yield good results. Let’s think about this for a second. What is the difference between a valid argument and a true argument? Here’s a sample argument:
1. A
2. A -> B
3. B -> C
THEREFORE: 4. C
The argument above is valid. Do we know if it is true? We don’t know if it is true unless it is the case that A is actually true, and the logical necessities involved actually obtain in the real world. Specifically, we have to know whether the starting premise A is true in order to know whether the conclusion of the argument is true (that C is true).
This leaves open the possibility that two valid, but false general principles will be extended in the round. It also opens the door to total absurdity.
Let’s consider the argument:
M (We live on the moon, a perfect society where no one suffers pain.)
M -> R (If we live on the moon, then we are reborn the morning after we die, same as before.)
R -> L (If we’re reborn, it’s OK to take life.)
THEREFORE: L
It’s OK to take life. If we apply this principle to the resolution, then it’s OK to take life as a response to repeated abuse, since it’s OK to take life in general.
These types of arguments are allowed if we only discuss validity and remove all epistemological considerations from the evaluative framework for adjudicating rounds. There is then no coherent logical tie breaker for deciding between competing debate arguments.
D. Finally, let’s look at the phrase