Trends in LD http://www.extemptopicanalysis.com/Trends%20in%20LD.htm TRENDS IN LD DEBATE UIL Capital Conference July 7, 2007 3:00-4:00 Tim Cook Salado High School Extemp Topic Analysis Texas Speech and Debate Camp UIL State LD Advisory Committee “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 Disclaimer Not endorsing, only presenting concept My challenge to you – Be open to new concepts Pellicciotta quote Each concept could be an hour session They do overlap Research method (Rostrum, discussions and observation) What do you do? Paradigms and ballots 1. Technical LD debaters are speaking faster and more concerned with the “line-by-line” portion of the debate. The LD community is moving towards this trend because of the vocabulary we are teaching the debaters: word economy, spread, block, brief and lay judge. 1 of 16 13-Dec-09 7:51 PM Trends in LD http://www.extemptopicanalysis.com/Trends%20in%20LD.htm A. 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.” Cyndy Woodhouse is very critical of the fast pace in her Rostrum article Delivery and Communication in LD: “Since the beginning of LD, debaters have gradually picked up speed, presumably in an attempt to “cover” more issues in the debate. While some judges and audiences can keep up with fast speaking, speed is normally unnecessary and excludes the many audiences who cannot follow it. Fast speeches exhaust the judges who can follow them and confuse the judges who cannot. The latter type of judge is often criticized as being “lay” or incapable. Instead of trying to speak more quickly to cram in as much information as possible, debaters should begin to adopt a more conversational speed to match articulation and emphasis. Speed is unnecessary when debaters pick and choose the most important arguments, weaving the evidence and details together to into a cohesive story with which they can beat or outweigh the arguments made by their opponents. It is not necessary to refute every sentence of every quoted author in order to attack a case successfully. Debaters need to slow down, think about the arguments they are making, and choose strategy over speed .” Why has the pace increased? 1. More argumentation in LD, longer cards, etc. 2. The audience. They want it and reward it. 3. Cheap strategy to win! B. Line by line is point by point refutation of an argument, usually with multiple arguments; often distinguished from a “big picture” approach. AC NC AR C utility 1..No real weighing mechanism: 1. How do I weigh freedom versus life or any other complex 2. effect of an action in this framework? 2. “Greatest Good” can’t be defined. 1. People have varying definitions for what is good. 2. There is no way to objectively quantify what is good. 3. There is no threshold for a utilitarian approach: 1. The utilitarian framework never gives us an objective way 2. 2 of 16 13-Dec-09 7:51 PM Trends in LD http://www.extemptopicanalysis.com/Trends%20in%20LD.htm to determine when the ends are desirable and when the means justify the ends. 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.” Ritter continues: “These debates usually involve competing interpretations of how LD debate should function and arise out of a disapproval of a practice of or a type of argument made by other debaters. If the affirmative speaker speeds through her affirmative constructive, and the negative speaker feels that this is an unfair practice, she will probably make an argument about it in the debate. In this instance, the negative speaker would argue (implicitly or explicitly) for her interpretation of how LD debate should be, which would exclude speaking too quickly. The affirmative speaker would want to respond to this by providing a different interpretation of what should be allowed in LD debate that would include speaking at rapid rates. In addition to an interpretation, the initiator of the theory debate should point out what the other debater did that would not correspond or fit within the parameters of that interpretation. In the previous example, the negative would want to point out that the affirmative spoke at a rate which many people, including the negative, could not understand.” 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 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. Essential components of a theory argument include: (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. Here are just a few types of theory arguments that can be seen. 3 of 16 13-Dec-09 7:51 PM Trends in LD http://www.extemptopicanalysis.com/Trends%20in%20LD.htm A. Topicality - is a type of theory that checks definitions or resolution interpretation Basic Topicality Shell (A) Interpretation - what is supposed to happen / not happen (with T, this would usually be a definition of a word in the resolution) (B) Violation - how your opponent fails to meet this interpretation (usually this is the most straightforward part) (C) Standards - why your interpretation is preferable (such as that it better promotes education or fairness, or has a clearer bright line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior) (D) Voters- usually this involves reasons to vote down your opponent because of the violation. Gives the judges reasons why they should pull the trigger on theory. B. Conditionality Conditionality is usually seen in debate rounds when the Affirmative over limits the resolution. Thus conditionality is a type of theory argument in which we have a discussion over whether the Affirmative has to prove the whole resolution true, or just parts of it. Therefore conditionality arguments usually take place when the Affirmative limits the resolution to a specific example instead of proving the whole resolution true. Common arguments for why conditionally affirming the resolution is acceptable: 1. – Off-sets abuse A: Aff has the hardest speech in the round – the 1AR. My opponent has plenty of time in the NC while I have only four minutes. B: If I have to conditionally affirm, than make my opponent conditionally negate. Otherwise, my opponent could pick any little part of the resolution to negate that I’m not ready for, which makes my 1AR even harder. Common arguments for why conditionally affirming is not acceptable: 1 – Burden failure. The affirmative has the burden to prove the whole resolution true and not just parts of it. If the affirmative only picks specific parts of the resolution to affirm, then the affirmative has failed a prima facia burden. 2 – No limit. There’s no bright line to how much the affirmative would have to prove. If the affirmative doesn’t have to prove the whole resolution true, then the affirmative can find the littlest, arbitrary way to affirm. Others: THEORY INDEX I. Burden Theory 1. Topicality is a Voting Issue 2. Critique of Topicality 3. AT Critique of Topicality 4. Conditionality Bad 5. AT Conditionality Bad 6. Parametrics Bad 7. AT Parametrics Bad 4 of 16 13-Dec-09 7:51 PM Trends in LD http://www.extemptopicanalysis.com/Trends%20in%20LD.htm II. Counterplan Theory 1. Counterplans Bad 2. AT Counterplans Bad 3. VICs Bad 4. AT VICs Bad 5. Discourse PICs Bad 6. AT Discourse PICs Bad 7. Dispositionality Bad 8. AT Dispositionality Bad 9.