CURMUDGEONLY THOUGHTS ON THE STATE OF POLICY by Larry Smith

The overarching assumption regard- or common citizen to judge a debate. The in the critique arguments that have been ing competitive debate ought to be that result is often, "What in hell are these kids spawned and spread into high school de- the activity is an educational one. The ex- doing?" Certainly this public perception of bate in the past few years. Critiques take tension of that assumption is that any ac- the activity is not what the forensic educa- two (maybe more) avenues, neither of tivity that is designated as educational tional community would like to broadcast which contribute anything useful to what should have as an end result some appli- regarding the value of competitive speech is supposed to occur in a high school de- cable knowledge or skills gained by the activity as an "educational" experience all bate. The avenues are born of the recent participants which could be applied in real students should receive. rage to be politically correct in all senses, life. There are several questions that need but particularly in language choices. Po- Any formulation of a policy or a to be answered regarding the problems litically correct loosely translates into "non change in policy requires a careful and many see in the arena of high school policy offensive" language...non offensive to any- thorough consideration and communica- debate. The first question is what seems to one, anywhere, anytime if that is possible tion of the net effects of the application of be root cause of this decline? Secondly, in making language choices. (I suspect the the policy. This would be true from the very what specific practices springing from same people who examine language micro level of a family attempting to de- these root causes are destroying policy de- choices for political correctness are also re- termine something as simple as the policy bate? Third, what could be done to return sponsible for the gobbledygook language for bedtime for children to the complex to a truly valid and valuable of governmental agencies, but that is an- macro policy decisions regarding the gov- educational activity? other article.) ernance of a nation. From a strictly biased and personal Negative teams have seized on the Educationally students participating position, high school debate has been critique (or kritik or kritick or other strange in policy debate competition should be wrested from the school classroom and the variations on the word) as another means learning to examine policies inherent in high school debate teacher. University "de- to play a game against affirmatives. Some the annual debate resolution and through bate camps" have promulgated the current teams argue that affirmative policy must exhaustive research and information gath- abuses of the activity by turning it into a be rejected because the terms of the debate ering be able to formulate coherent argu- game of theory arguments. Those who sit resolution contain offensive language ments for or against a particular policy. in the ivory towers of academia examining choices. This absurdity becomes an argu- That is supposed to be what policy debate rhetorical communication and persuasion ment in the round, even though the affir- is all about....and by extension, it is sup- theory are also, unfortunately, the same mative has no choice regarding the word- posed to be teaching them the methods and people who instruct high school debaters ing of the resolution. In the jargon of de- skills required in real life decision mak- in weeks long institutes. baters, it is nothing but a "time suck" that ing. It should be a training ground for fu- At the university level ongoing re- conceivably could have a place in a real ture leaders. search and the publish or perish dictum are world discussion regarding policy word- That would be the ideal, education- the driving factors to retain instructional ing formulation, but should not appear in ally speaking. Unfortunately policy debate positions. Job security dictates constant academic debate. For example, I could see at the interscholastic level has degenerated thinking and evolution into new interpre- in the real world how language choices in the past decade to something less than tations and "knowledge" that can be pub- could be important in encoding a policy, what its name would imply. Rather, policy lished or presented to other colleagues at but to argue that affirmatives are respon- debate has become an activity that is more conventions and conferences. (One has sible for the wording of a debate a complex theory game, played by a very only to sit through some of these presenta- resolution's "offensive" terminology is an select few for a very select audience that tions to realize just how far beyond the egregious abuse of academic research into subscribes to this "game" approach. The norm some are. The facetious observation language effect that is better left to doc- decline nationwide of the number of regarding doctoral dissertations is true. To toral dissertations. schools which participate in policy debate obtain a Ph.D. one researches and learns A second abuse of the critique argu- is enough that something has more and more about less and less, then ment is for either team to object to some gone wrong in the state of debate. In policy publishes the findings. Usually to no use- language choice by the other. Again, this debate rounds very little in the way of ful purpose in the real world.) is an abuse of time that could be better spent "policy" in a real world sense is ever de- Critiques debating specific issues in the round. David bated. While these efforts are expected and Hingstman offers in the Rostrum (March From an educational viewpoint this encouraged at the university level, they 1997) an example of a critique argument is profoundly disturbing. Future genera- should have little, if any, influence on high heard in a round. "...scapegoating and age- tions are being deprived of the skills re- school students. Unfortunately that is not ism kritiks ask the judge not to treat juve- quired in making sound policy decisions. what happens. A good example of this nile crime as a special social Ask any attorney, teacher, businessperson, abuse of knowledge by application appears problem...because it stigmatizes juveniles and masks adult crime and becomes a self of absurdity when debaters find obscure dribbling down to policy debate is that in- fulfilling prophecy." And he shows an af- definitions for words such as "to", "for", volved in the logic of the decision making firmative abuse of the game of critiquing, "by" and "federal" and try to apply those process. Specifically the whole issue of "The kritik often asks the judge to ignore definitions to challenge the validity of the cause and effect has disappeared from de- that are grounded in the sec- affirmative plan's adherence to the word- bate. Debate jargon used to include ondary consequences of the plan because ing of the resolution. Too often the whole inherency (current policy or lack of policy) of the interests of marginalized groups or topicality argument comes down to "our and significance (harms). Debaters on the peoples (racially or genderized others)." dictionary (source) is better than theirs." affirmative had to demonstrate a cause-ef- The search for political correctness Even worse, topicality arguments, often fect relationship between inherent policy in language choices should be left to the multiple arguments on multiple words or and some sort of societal harms. ivory towers of communication research phrases, seem to consume entire first nega- Somewhere, probably at those same and learned papers. It has no place in high tive time blocks. I once judged a round at institutes, someone decreed that inherency school policy debate if educationally the nationals where the negative team asked was not an issue. The resolution exists, goal is to teach students to discover the real my preferences. Among other preferences, therefore there must be a problem with the world processes of policy decision making. I noted I was not a big fan of topicality policy related to the resolution. Negatives Specifically no judge should ever decide a arguments. What did first negative do? He were absolved of having to defend any cur- debate round on the basis of who did or stood up and read (at 400 wpm) eight min- rent policy because none is mentioned by did not use "offensive" language choices. utes worth of topicality briefs! Nothing on affirmatives. To be sure, affirmatives can The critique arguments are nothing more inherency. (more about that later) Nothing offer harms...dead bodies on the podium, than an attempt to avoid the real issues in on significance. Just topicality, not one of or other societal harms or risks...but rarely policy debate and to intervene in the deci- the arguments really applicable to the af- will a clear indictment of status quo poli- sion the judge makes by forcing the judge firmative plan. (I had listened to the plan. cies be made to show the direct cause of to consider irrelevant issues. It was topical, at least reasonably so, which those alleged harms. Negatives rarely Topicality is the standard I usually apply.) In sum, bother to question affirmative's assumption A second theory argument that has topicality, which should be an issue only that current policy is the direct cause of been distorted well beyond its original in- rarely if affirmatives are following the rule these harms. tent is topicality. The rules of debate (of of offering a plan to implement the resolu- In a real world decision making pro- which there are only four or five) state that tion has become THE issue for first nega- cess when some sort of harm is evident the the affirmative team must offer a new policy tives and even is being introduced into a first question to ask before implementing that implements the wording of the reso- debate by some second negatives. I can en- any sort of remedy is, what is causing these lution. For years topicality arguments were vision the horror of listening to a whole harms? Contemporary debate allows reasonably rare in debate rounds, and then round where negative offers nothing but affirmatives to offer some policy and find they only appeared when an affirmative topicality and critique arguments...theory some asserted harms that it will suppos- team offered some policy plan that was only, no substantive arguments on policy. edly correct. eg: legalize drugs, reduce ju- clearly outside of and beyond the scope of And the tragic thing about most venile crime. Nowhere does the judge hear what the resolution stated. Under the in- rounds is that topicality as an issue too of- how status quo policy of making drugs il- stigation of debate theorists, again at de- ten disappears off the sheet after 2nd legal is the direct, primary cause of juve- bate camps, the topicality voting issue has affirmative constructive's responses. So? nile crime. The resolution exists...current become expanded well beyond what it was Why did first negative waste all that time policy must be at fault. No argument. No originally intended to be. when he could have been arguing some- logic either. The affirmative teams just likes Topicality has become not an option, thing more substantive? The answer is the bold concept of legalized drugs and but instead an obligatory issue in every simple: institutes teach topicality as a adapts that thought into policy to imple- debate round, even when an affirmative theory, and students come away with whole ment the resolution. plan is clearly topical. And applying the blocks and briefs that require them to think Since negatives rarely make issue of "advanced theory thinking" of college re- little in a debate round. And it was tradi- inherency and significance, it is no won- search, the topicality issue has reached tionally the first negative who had to be der poor first negative has been relegated highly structured and extensively obtuse the best thinker in the round. Here again to topicality briefs and a few language to the point that only a handful the esoteric thinking of theorists overrides arguments his partner doesn't have time to of "game debate" practitioners can com- the pragmatic arguments one would expect run. side arguments are obsolete, ac- prehend what is being argued. (I've judged to find in any debate over policy in the real cording to the theorist gurus. many rounds where it was clear the topi- world. Can you imagine congress arguing Plan Attacks cality block being argued had sprung di- topicality (definitional issues) over some Policy debate, then, has come down rectly from some debate institute brief, policy proposal? Topicality arguments like to 52 minutes of argument and rebuttal on probably written by some graduate student critiques are designed to influence the the merits of an affirmative plan: topical- instructor. It was also clear too often that judge's decision making process by direct- ity, disadvantages. Period. Most negatives the debater offering this unintelligible ar- ing it away from that of a policy maker to do not even bother to actually think about gument did not have a clue regarding the that of an arbitrator on language choices. what a plan says and offer any plan meet meaning of what he/she was reading.) Inherency advantage or workability arguments. That Topicality arguments reach the point Another negative influence of theory would require in round thinking and analy- sis. No canned briefs eight pages long. logical thinking processes that go into rhetorical and argument theory such as Since topicality, a plan attack, has policy decision making processes. Just those that have spawned the critique argu- been discussed, turn for a moment to dis- imagine a teenager arguing against a fam- ments. Institute directors should focus on advantage arguments. Here again we will ily policy of a midnight curfew by telling the real world for a change rather than the find the fertile minds of university students his parents the curfew has placed the world academic. at work. Students attending institutes come on the road to nuclear destruction. And just There are other suggestions I could away with boxes full of eight page disad- imagine any legislative body attempting to make to remake policy debate into an edu- vantage briefs. No thought process here. determine policy having to consider cational experience that teaches real world Just stand up and read them in the round, whether or not implementing that policy skills in decision making. Some are doable. even if you don't fully understand what the would lead to environmental collapse. Others are probably off the wall. brief says or that it takes seven and a half To be sure, the effects, as best they First, let me propose some new rules: minutes of precious constructive time to can be predicted, of any proposed policy Rule one: No debate may be decided read at 400 wpm. should be explored before adoption of the on theory or decision rule arguments. This Some, like the beef disadvantage ar- policy. If there are disadvantages those would eliminate critique arguments in par- gument, probably started as a joke. Others ought to be within the realm of the dis- ticular which either side will try to "sell" which invariably have some sort of apoca- tinctly possible, real world possibilities. No the judge as decision rules. In other words, lyptic world ending impact are at face value one can go beyond the concept of risk and just because a team asserts, "This critique counter intuitive. Any adult judge sitting say any impact would be probable because is a decision rule." does not mean the judge in the round probably knows enough his- we cannot predict the future. Impact pos- must act on that assertion at all. tory to know that similar actions (to affir- sibilities should be just that rather than the Rule two: Topicality arguments mative plan) have been implemented in the absolute probables negatives now proclaim. raised by negative must be based on gram- past without triggering nuclear war or en- "Adopt affirmative and nuclear war will matical phrases rather than single words vironmental collapse. Yet high school de- occur" is patently faulty logic and poor ar- within the resolution. That would elimi- baters will take briefs prepared on the gument. Do you think institute college stu- nate at least some of the nit-picking ob- "learned" knowledge of college students in dent instructors will ever teach that? Me scure definitional challenges to single economics classes or political science neither. words. classes and utilize them in a round...often That answers, somewhat, the ques- Rule three: Debaters may not utilize not understanding a word of what they tions "what is the root cause of the decline preprepared briefs. All argumentation must read. No thinking is involved. How many of policy debate?" and "what are the spe- be spoken to the judge, but debaters may really understand the "net widening" dis- cific practices from these causes that are read quotations from 4" x 6" cards in sup- advantage that appears round after round? destroying debate?" In sum, institutes have port of their arguments. There go the Rarely is any disadvantage clearly allowed advanced theory in argument to canned eight page disadvantage briefs linked to affirmative plan. Generics creep into the high school curriculum. or abound. And the thinking is, if this one These "cutting edge" topicality, critique, Rather than limit debaters to just doesn't have enough impact to convince the disadvantage theories are well beyond the cards, allow each debate team two evidence judge, then the next three or four will. Each scope of the educational intent implicit in tubs for files. Just think of the back strain is built on linking various and divergent teaching students good, logical decision and excess airline baggage charges that sources into a chain of reasoning that de- making processes. It would be best if these would be eliminated. fies all logic. If one could assemble all the theories were left at the university level to Rule four: Change speaking times. quoted authorities in the room and ask them be shared by academics in the field to rheto- In rebuttals give 1AR 6 minutes and 1 NR to come to the same conclusion as the stated ric and argumentation at their various con- 6 minutes. Final rebuttals, summation impact, in all probability the experts would ferences. speeches required, 4 minutes each. Final laugh uproariously. Yet negatives claim Solutions rebuttals would be restricted to summariz- these impacts to be true probabilities. And The last question is, "What can be ing the debate from a side's viewpoint. Af- how are they being educated in the deci- done to return policy debate to a truly valid ter the 2NC/CX the judges would name the sion making process by this profligate leap educational activity?" issues considered crucial for their decision, frog logic? There are no clear answers. Should and the first rebuttalists would confine their Through all the college influenced institutes be prohibited...or students be pro- arguments to those issues. Some thought changes in policy debate have we seen any hibited from debating at the interscholas- might be given to reversing the order so truly educational benefits? The answer is tic level if they attend institutes? No. In 1AR immediately follows the 2NC/CX. only for a handful of students who seize spite of the damage I see inflected on high That way the judges can hear immediate on the theory game playing aspect and es- school policy debate, I still found that the responses to 2NC plan attacks. chew the true purpose of what policy de- students I sent to institutes had a very good, Rule five: Require that negative ar- bate is supposed to be. And other students in depth educational experience. I just had gue issues of inherency and significance (and coaches) stay away from policy de- to de-program them when they came home or grant those issues in the round by an- bate in droves because they perceive it as so they could debate for our local judges. nouncing they will do so. too arcane and meaningless. And that is Institutes should be held accountable, how- Rule six: Do not allow debaters to not as it should be. The result, fewer and ever, for what they teach. What they teach ask judges for judging philosophy. fewer students are learning the real world, should be basic debate devoid of advanced Rule seven: Instruct judges to put down their pen and stop taking notes when- ever the speaking rate is too fast for com- prehension. Rule eight: Instruct judges they do not have to take the debaters' word. If they have personal knowledge (not beliefs) that indicates an argument is blatantly untrue or counter intuitive to logic and historical pre- cedent, the judge may reject the argument and so note on the ballot. Rule nine: Prohibit debaters from tell- ing the judges "this is the winning argu- ment in the round" or asserting similar are the crucial issues in the round and note them for the debaters prior to rebuttals. Rule ten: On debate ballots elevate speaking skills to the top of the chart and award more points for effective communi- cation than for other categories. Example: Ability of speaker to clearly speak and communicate arguments and evidence read- ing during round: 5-20 points Ability of speaker to reason and use logical thought processes in analyzing and presenting arguments: 5-20 points. Ability of speaker to effectively uti- lize evidence in formulating arguments dur- ing the round: 5-15 points. Ability of speaker to present argu- ments in an organized fashion so the judge can follow where those are to be applied: 5- 10 points. Admittedly, all of this is personal opinion and curmudgeonly. There is one aspect of it all that is undeniably true, how- ever. Policy debate at the high school level is a declining activity which engages only a handful of students nationwide. It should not be so. Rather, the thinking, decision making and other educational skills that debate can offer ought to be experienced by thousands of students nationwide.

(Larry Smith is a member of the NFL and CHSSA Halls of Fame.)