What’s Trending in #UIL #LD

Robey HollandProsper High Schoolrgholland@prosper-isd.net

Special Thanks

Tim Cook- Salado High School

Michael Ritter- The Forensics Files

Minh A. Luong- Yale University

I have learned a great many things on the progression of Lincoln Douglas Debate from these fine educators. Without their contributions and insight this session would not be possible.

The nature of LD“Over the past few years, the nature of Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate has rapidly evolved. At tournaments, more judges are giving oral criticisms, postmodern argumentation is being utilized more frequently, new jargon is appearing in common LD vocabulary, debaters are speaking more rapidly, more topics introduce questions of policy, pre-standard issues are proliferating, more debaters are kritiking the topic and some are experimenting with performativity. Many judges, teachers and coaches notice that several concepts and practices from cross-examination (CX) debate have appeared in LD debate rounds. Whether these changes are for the better or for the worse does not change the fact that this change is occurring.”Michael J. Ritter, “A Theory of Theory in Lincoln Douglas Debate (Understanding the Basic Components of Theory Debate),” Rostrum

The F word… Framework

Framework is a term that is thrown around quite a bit in LD. Unfortunately what the term “framework” might mean to you or I is not necessarily what current LD debaters mean when they use the term.

The result of the multiple meanings of framework that are common on our circuit is that it can create a barrier between the judge and the debater.

A traditional UIL judge may say in their paradigm that they like framework debate, and the debater may mistakenly interpret that to mean something else entirely.

Framework Continued

Ultimately the word framework will always involve an argument which can be used as a round framing device.

Today the word framework has, to the best of my knowledge, three distinct meanings.

1. Framework can refer to the combination of the Value and the Criterion in a debate case. (traditional)

2. Framework can be used as an interchangeable term for a theory argument. (application of policy)

3. Framework can describe a definitional conflict in the debate round. (topicality without standards/voters)

3 definitions for the same term… why?!

Traditionally speaking framework in an LD round referred to the synthesis of the Value and Criterion.

The incorporation of policy arguments into LD invited framework to be understood as a theory argument.

Framework meaning definitional debate is very common in other states, so debaters that have the opportunity to compete on the national stage come back with new jargon.

Contextual Standards

If there is one new piece of information from this session I would like you to take home to your students it is the concept of contextual standards.

As a bonus for those who believe that “progressive” arguments are polluting LD Debate, there is nothing inherently progressive (taken to mean policy-esque) about the usage of contextual standards.

Contextual standards simply provide an alternative approach Value/Criterion debate.

Contextual standards are capable of uniquely meeting the weighing needs of current resolutions.

Types of StandardsPhilosophic/ Abstract

The more traditional standards of UIL LD Debate

Higher level values

This is the part of the AC or NC that will introduce the philosophic concept that will serve as the underpinning for the AFF/NEG Advocacy

ExamplesThe Categorical ImperativeThe Social Contract TheoryUtilitarianismJusticeSuccess

Contextual

You will recognize it by the inclusion of an action

Lower level values

Examples:Upholding a system of checks and balancesEnsuring rights for the oppressed. Increasing access to healthcare Consistent application of legitimate laws

Value judgments in the real world

Very rarely in the real-world do we think about the overarching value of “justice” or “social progress” when discussing public affairs subjects similar to those framed in Lincoln Douglas debate resolutions. Instead, we think of instrumental values, which are lower level values that have a more direct relationship to the subject matter.

StandardsIn order to understand why contextual standards are beneficial, it’s important that we first remind ourselves what the purpose of a standard is. There are a number of ways to think about value and criteria and some of the most common are:

Standard of measurement, which establishes a unit measurement such as dollars or other measurable standard.

Selection mechanism, which establishes a course of action given certain conditions. For example, John Rawls’ Difference Principle stipulates that resources should be distributed equally and if there are any remaining inequalities, they should be distributed to favor the least advantaged.

“Finish line,” which merely signals success once a certain condition has been met or reached. For example, economic equality is met when all citizens have basic needs met.

Standards ContinuedMeans of attainment, which sets a path to reach the value or goal. For example, a very robust debate can be over achieving the value of economic prosperity. Should we adopt a “trickle down” economic plan based on tax cuts for the rich and corporations or increased government spending on social programs? ·

Filtering mechanism, which isolates only certain issues related to the resolution. For example, successful debaters have used this type of criterion to persuade judges to accept only human rights-based arguments when determining trade policies. Given a value or goal, most students can identify ways of determining proper criteria, given some coaching. The two most common stumbling blocks are to try to apply several standards of measurement, some of which might conflict, instead of a single criterion and thinking too narrowly about what constitutes a criterion.

Problems with the traditional/abstract

methodMost Lincoln-Douglas debaters identify a very abstract value such as “justice” or “progress” and try to apply it to a specific empirical context stipulated in the L-D resolution. The result is a lack of context and precision because abstract values are “too high” for empirically-applied L-D resolutions to be adequately analyzed in just 13 minutes.

This is tantamount to using an ax when, in actuality, a scalpel is required.

Problems Continued

It promotes shallow analysis and is difficult for judges to understand.

 Many judges do not see the “value” in contemporary value debate rounds because use of overly abstract values results in a loss of meaning and relevance as it is applied to the resolution.

Here’s a problem you didn’t expect:

Using the highest, most abstract value is exactly the wrong standard for today’s applied Lincoln-Douglas debate resolutions.

Debaters who claim that their value should be upheld because “it is the highest value in the round” are not only setting themselves up for a much tougher argumentative burden, but they are actually providing reasons why their value should not be used in the round.

The “higher” the value is the more removed from the debate topic it will likely be.

99 Problems

Use of abstract values and even worse, focus of the debate over competing philosophical theories, sidesteps or completely ignores the discussion over the actual debate resolution.

So we end up having the same tired debate between the merits of Utilitarianism v. Deontology instead of actually talking about the topic area.

This is recycled analysis from resolution to resolution. Debaters are learning nothing by engaging in this reductive debate for years on end.

Benefits of Contextual Standards

Resolutional Relevance- keep debates focused and relevant to the resolution, assisting judges with decision making and making the debate more educational for students.

Argument Selection- Tailors debate analysis to the requirements of the debate topic and helps justify their selection of issues for the debate.

The new standard for criteria or decision rules is that they provide a clear “bright-line” standard for argument evaluation.

Benefits Continued

Contextual standards meet all 5 conceptions of the function of a standard mentioned earlier:

standard of measurement

selection mechanism

finish line

means of attainment

filtering mechanism

Example

Topic: Business Success

Traditional Practice: Abstract Values and Criterion

New Contextual Standards

Value(s) Justice Due Process

Criterion Social Contract Theory

Consistent application of legitimate laws

Comments Vague and offers no clear standard for evaluation. Lacks resolutional context.

Isolates one interpretation of justice and offers a clear standard for evaluation. Is also grounded in the topic area.

Final Thoughts on Contextual StandardsBenefit to the debate round: judges will find themselves intervening far less often when bright-line standards for evaluation are explicit in the debate.

Benefit to the debater: When we teach our students to carefully craft a rule that sets a standard or standards for making a decision, we will have empowered them with a tool that will serve them well for the rest of their lives.

Technical Debate

Speed will always be subjective. Clearly, there is a difference between increased pace and “rapid-fire” delivery. The question is what is too fast?

Paul Moffitt discusses in his Rostrum article, The Questions Dividing Us:

“I know I am not the only one to notice how the pace of LD rounds, especially those at the higher levels of state and national tournaments, seems to have gotten faster. Let’s face it: 38 minutes just isn’t what it used to be. The effects of increasing rates of delivery on the world of debate has been a contentious topic in many a Rostrum article over the years.”

Why is speed increasing?

1. More argumentation in LD, longer cards, etc.

2. The audience. They want it and reward it.

3. Cheap strategy to win!

Line by Line

Line by line is point by point refutation of an argument, usually with multiple arguments; often distinguished from a “big picture” approach.

AC NC 1AR

Cri- Utility 1. No real weighing mechanism

1.--- 2.---

2. “Greatest Good” can’t be defined

1.---2. ----

3. There is no threshold for the utilitarian approach

1. ---2. ----

Theory

Theory is a broad term the “debate community” uses for checking abuse. Theory arguments are seen in LD debate rounds, when some type of style, position or advocacy is abusive. The last few years have seen an influx of theoretical issues.

Michael J. Ritter wrote in A Theory of Theory in Lincoln Douglas Debate:

“Theory debates help students shape their opinions of how debate should function, which furthers efforts to maintain those valued qualities of the activity.”

Theory Continued

Two things you should know about theory argumentation:

 1. Most theory arguments stem from some type of in-round implication (fairness or education). These types of implications explain why in-round abuse is enough for your judge to vote of theory.

 2. All good theory arguments must be structured. A proper theory argument, should first explain where the violation of theory actually takes place. Then it should explain why this violation or abuse is enough for the judge to pull the trigger.

Components of a proper theory argument

(1) An interpretation of how debate should function;

(2) A reason the practice of another debater is not included under this interpretation;

(3) Reasons why the interpretation is good for debate;

(4) What common value or values the interpretation promotes; and

(5) An actual impact, or how the judge should weigh the argument.

How theory has crept into UIL LD

Over the past few years, a common addition to the AC and the NC are “observations.”

Observations function as lay theory.By that, I mean that they still function as round framing arguments.

What they lack, however, is the proper structure of a theory argument which is requisite for good theory debate.

UIL Theory Continued

Why do they lack the proper structure?It is easier to make the average UIL state judge vote for an observation than a proper theory shell.

More likely there opponent will drop the argument if it is blippy.

Why are kids reading this argument in the first place?

One of the easiest ways to win the debate round if the argument is dropped. The theory burden almost always shifts the ground of the round in a way that disadvantages the opponent.

Policy Arguments

Given many of the topics have been policy in nature, “policy debate” concepts have entered into LD debate.

1. TOPICALITY. the question of whether or not the affirmative in Lincoln Douglas case meets the intent and or letter of the debate resolution. If it does not meet the intent or wording it can be attacked as “untopical”.

Policy Continued2. COUNTERPLAN. A counterplan is a negative substitute for the affirmative plan. Or, in Lincoln Douglas debate, it is more likely to be a substitute for the action (or agent of action) advocated in the wording of the debate topic. Occasionally the topic itself might suggest replacing one plan with another.

Consider the topic “Resolved: Juveniles charged with violent crimes should be tried and punished as adults”. Without calling them counterplans many negative debaters could use counterplan arguments. In as little as one sentence or as much as a whole case some negative debaters argued that juveniles be tried as adults but be punished in a new category of jail or prison rather than adult jails. The counterplan strategy under this topic is to say that “even if” there is a problem there is a better nontopical way to deal with it.

Policy Continued

3. DISADVANTAGES. A disadvantage shows a harm that comes from, or is exacerbated by, supporting the debate resolution. Negative Lincoln Douglas debaters have used disadvantages since the event was created but, until recently, rarely used the word disadvantage.

4. Case Turns. A primary method current LD’ers utilize to win the impact debate. Instead of reading simple case defense against their opponents case, they are reading arguments that impact turn the opponents advocacy.

KritiksThe kritik has moved out of the policy sphere and is now comfortably made its way into many LD debate rounds.

Some debaters are using the typical CX debate structure for their criticism. (Link, Implication, Alternative)

On the national circuit debaters are reading kritiks as a way to generate more offense in the 1AR, and also as a means to check the 1AR time skew. (Gendered Language K)

In LD critical arguments are often being read as case arguments.

Example- Reading Deleuze cards to indicate that the affirmative does not solve for the “root cause” of the issue in the debate round.

Evidence

Evidence is becoming a lot longer than it used to be. There is an added emphasis on the need for evidence to warrant an argument, not merely make a claim.

This is really good for debate

But necessarily makes debaters increase speed

LD rounds are progressively becoming a battle of the evidence utilized the debaters, not a big picture debate about the topic area.