November/December 2022 LD Topic Roundtable

Victory Briefs presents a topic roundtable, where we solicit coaches and members of the debate community to provide input on which topic they believe should be selected to debate for the upcoming topic slot. 

This first entry covers the three potential topics for the 2022 November/December topic slot.

Voting is now open! To vote: log in to your NSDA account, click the “Topic Voting” red bar on the left, and click the blue “Vote” button in the “2022 November/December LD Ballot” row.

Voting closes on 9/30/2022. Your vote matters, the last LD topic vote was quite close! According to the NSDA for September/October 2022, “A total of 512 coaches and 1,442 students voted for the resolution. The winning resolution received 40% of the coach vote and 35% of the student vote.” 

The potential topics for the 2022 November/December topic slot are as follows: 

• Resolved: The People’s Republic of China ought to prioritize environmental protection over economic growth.
• Resolved: Singapore’s Ethnic Integration Policy is unjust.
• Resolved: The Republic of Korea ought to abolish military conscription.

We have invited 5 coaches to provide their reasoning for which topic ought to be selected. 

Lawrence Zhou - Military Conscription 

To be honest, I think the three potential November/December LD topics are all pretty bad, especially in comparison to the slate of topics we got for the September/October slot. However, one clearly stands out to me as the best—military conscription. 

Let’s start with why I think the other options are worse. 

The China topic is nothing more than a modified version of the 2014 January/February LD topic: January/February – Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict. Anyone who debated that topic understood that the negative ground on that topic was horrifically bad not just because there isn’t a very strong argument in favor of destroying the environment (and because destroying the environment often itself undermines economic growth) but because there was simply no good backstop against a tidal wave of tiny specific advocacies aka plans. What is to stop the affirmative from saying that we shouldn’t mine a particular coal vein, shut down a particular dam, or even just affirm the status quo given the recent 14th FYP that already prioritizes environmental protection in a wide variety of domains? 

I struggle to think of a single unifying generic that survived the entire season on the last version of this topic (apart from tricky philosophical NCs that didn’t really reflect any serious philosophical work in the area of environmental ethics). The affirmative was always incentivized to pick a tiny area where there was very little for the negative to say and the negative was always forced to retreat to extremist generics (e.g., untenable versions of libertarianism or random kritiks of issues unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution) or to be saddled with the unreasonable expectation of producing a specific negative file to every possible affirmative proposal. As someone who has proposed some version of a China topic to the topic committee for the past three years, I’m excited to see a China topic finally make it to the final slate of topics, but I’m unconvinced that this version of the topic would make for a good debate topic. 

The Singapore topic is a subject area I view as interesting and under-discussed, but also a poor subject for a two-month debate topic. While there are some articles discussing the issue, a quick skim of Google Scholar on the issue shows very few articles directly about the EIP, with results by page 3 quickly moving to discuss the EIP merely in passing. The core conflict is whether the EIP increased social integration or marginalized the Malay and Indian underclass (or both), an interesting debate but that is basically just a single argument for each side. I don’t think this topic is quite as bad as the initial reactions to it have suggested it would be, but I don’t think this is a topic I would want to debate for two months given the dearth of literature on the issue. 

In comparison, I think the military conscription topic is fascinating. The topic burst into the limelight when BTS rekindled a debate about military service in South Korea. There are also excellent philosophical arguments on the topic. Coupled with the unique cultural and historical dynamics of South Korea, I think there are many excellent debates to be had about the importance or necessity of military service. There are interesting debates about conscientious objectors, how conscription interacts with changing population dynamics, and if conscription would help or hinder South Korea in a conventional conflict with North Korea. 

In my mind, only the conscription topic has a relatively balanced ground for both sides and has lots of literature to support both sides. The China topic has huge swaths of literature but an inequitable division of ground; the Singapore topic has relatively equitable ground but lacks a robust enough literature base to sustain a two-month debate topic. This is why I think that conscription is the best topic. 

That being said, my suspicion is that people will naturally gravitate towards the China topic, drawn in by the allure of an interesting topic area and the novelty of debating from the perspective of the other world superpower (although people have been reading clearly untopical affirmatives about China for several years now). I don’t think it would be the end of the world should the China topic be selected, but I do suspect it will be a pain to prepare as the negative. 

Jacob Nails - Military Conscription

My grade: I give the South Korea topic an A, the Singapore topic a B, and the China topic an F.

The Chinese environmentalism resolution is a clear dead last. The only plus I see to this topic is that it exists at the intersection of two geopolitically salient subjects that students would benefit from learning about—China and the environment—but the topic is not well-suited to foster engaging debates on these issues.

The main problems stem from the “value A over B” mechanism. Topics with this style of wording need to be debatable at an abstract level because they tend not to provide enough context to be interpreted as a specific statement of policy. What would it look like for China to pass a law that prioritized the environment over the economy? It could look like about a million things. The number of environmental issues is as innumerable as the set of policies targeting them and the types of economic activities they could conflict with. The Jan-Feb ’14 resolution (“Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict”) demonstrated this in spades. The policies debaters conjured up were absolutely limitless and culminated in a disaster of a topic.

Broadness and vagueness would not be a problem per se if there were substantive debate to be had about the topic as a principle. The Jan-Feb ’13 resolution (“Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system”), for example, produced fine debates because the main conflicts between rehabilitation and retribution stemmed from opposing philosophies of crime and punishment that cut across context. But the size and severity of both environmental and economic issues are primarily empirical and context-dependent questions that can’t be meaningfully gauged in the abstract, and “China” is far from sufficient context to reach any interesting philosophical conclusion about how growth somehow categorically supersedes the environment or vice versa. The topic asks a detail-oriented question without the details to evaluate it.

A related trouble with the resolution is that the two values pitted against one another aren’t inherently at odds. The most recent “prioritize” topic from last season (Mar-Apr ‘21, “Resolved: In a democracy, a free press ought to prioritize objectivity over advocacy”) illustrated both sides of this issue. On the one hand, this topic at its best produced clash over a core controversy, as objectivity and advocacy were two approaches to journalism directly contrasted against one another in the topic literature. On the other hand, debaters would often define “objectivity” in terms like “ensuring factual accuracy in reporting,” which left no real trade-off between objectivity and advocacy, and when this happened it resulted in the two sides talking past each other.

While the blame on that topic could mostly be laid on crafty debaters with dubious definitions, the problem seems much more insoluble on the China topic. The argument over whether growth benefits the environment is not just idle nitpicking, but one of the central resolutional questions. Is this an argument for the negative? It’s not clear. If the two values turn out not to be in conflict, what does it mean to prioritize one? Where does the controversy even lie? The division between sides becomes unclear. And hand-waving these arguments away by assuming an implicit “When in conflict…” constraint on the topic doesn’t make things any better. Not only is it unclear ex-ante which forms of growth will net harm the environment, forcing debaters to muddle topicality and content to determine which examples apply, but limiting the discussion to only the cases where growth is most clearly harmful is to stack the deck against the negative.

And lastly, we’ve seen China crop up as the subject of some rounds on recent topics such as nuclear weapons (Jan-Feb ‘20), lethal autonomous weapons (Jan-Feb ‘21), and appropriation of space (Jan-Feb ‘22). These rounds uniformly produced some of the lowest quality debates on each topic, leaving me skeptical of debaters’ ability to discuss China constructively.

The other two topics are much better.

Turning next to the Singapore topic, some background info is in order. One will need to know about Singapore’s Ethnic Integration Policy or EIP to form an informed opinion on this topic. The EIP instituted ethnic quotas for housing in Singapore, requiring that each neighborhood and housing block reflect Singapore’s overall ethnic makeup (which is majority Chinese, with substantial Malay and Indian minority groups). The purpose of the law is to ensure members of different ethnicities live amongst and interact with each other and to prevent the formation of ethnic enclaves within society (a map of racial demographics in many U.S. cities may give a good indication of what the law aims to avoid). I recommend this talk by Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong for background info on race relations in Singapore (he also touches on his support for the EIP during the Q&A). Critics claim that race-based quotas inflame rather than ameliorate racial tensions and that the law may inadvertently harm minority groups. For example, if a downtown housing block is already at quota for Chinese occupants, only Chinese homeowners will be able to sell to prospective Chinese buyers without exceeding the quota; Malay or Indian home sellers, unable to accept most offers, must settle for a lower price and a longer search for buyers.

First, the pros. The topic is very clear and concise. It’s only six words, half of those being the name of an exact law. Aside from perhaps minor disputes over the exact meaning of “unjust,” the topic leaves little room for ambiguity. It also succeeds at (what I take to be) the main goal of this year’s November-December topic basket, namely, encouraging students to engage with controversies elsewhere in the world. I am certain almost no students had extensive prior knowledge of Singapore’s Ethnic Integration Policy, and, more so than on the other two topics, succeeding on this topic will require they thoroughly familiarize themselves with a new cultural and political context. And while most students will never live in Singapore, a topic that concerns race relations and housing policy can teach lessons of domestic relevance, both in thinking through the topic’s similarities to U.S. issues as well as the many ways in which the Singaporean context is different.

One of the topic’s strengths is also a major downside. Because this topic requires a deep understanding of the current affairs of a distant nation as a pre-condition to informed debates, rounds between debaters who haven’t researched the topic thoroughly will be even poorer than usual. And even where both debaters have done their due diligence, the judge may not have. It is not a safe assumption to hope that a parent volunteering for the weekend has engaged in background reading on Singaporean politics. These debates may end up much worse than they could be due to the inherent knowledge barrier.

Another drawback is that the EIP isn’t the largest controversy ever and so the literature base is somewhat lighter than the average topic. November-December is one of the less intensive topic slots for most regions, so the shallowness isn’t a fatal flaw, but I could just as easily see this topic fitting comfortably in a one-month Public Forum topic slot. In particular, the affirmative might struggle to find support for the law being fundamentally unjust. Not being an expert myself, I consulted a few Singaporeans, and the general impression seems to be that the EIP is relatively popular or at least accepted as the state of things by most of the public. Some expressed concern that the affirmative will have a harder time.

Finally, my topic of choice: South Korean Conscription.

Conscription is a Lincoln-Douglas classic, being the third LD resolution ever debated (Mar-Apr ‘81, “Resolved: military conscription is a superior alternative to a voluntary army”) and with variations on the theme showing up three other times since for Nov-Dec ‘89 (“Resolved: all United States citizens ought to perform a period of national service”), NFL—now NSDA—Nationals ‘09 (“Resolved: Military conscription is unjust”), and Sep-Oct ‘17 (“Resolved: In the United States, national service ought to be compulsory”). That the topic committee has returned to this topic area so many times shows there’s something right about it, and my experience with the 2009 and 2017 iterations supports this.

Conscription sits at the crossroads of the ethical and the political which makes for an ideal Lincoln-Douglas topic. One can ask moral questions about the extent of individual liberty in times of war as well as practical questions about public perception or military effectiveness. The literature on all of these matters is deep and goes back decades, including a wealth of empirical studies to be cited on both sides.

This topic would be the first time conscription, or any topic, has been situated in a South Korean context. While I don’t think the added specification is necessary to facilitate productive debates over conscription, it is also not unwelcome. This topic, just like the EIP topic, is worded clearly and concisely with an unambiguous agent and action, leaving little room for interpretational confusion. Korea gives a modern political setting that makes the debate more concrete and relevant, and conflict on the Korean peninsula is always a timely topic to learn about.

My only word of caution is that I expect debaters to gravitate toward superficial specificity on a topic like this one, preferring to cite the news article of the week that explicitly uses the word “Korea” over the meta-analysis of conscription throughout history that doesn’t. I would resist this impulse.

Amadea Datel – Military Conscription

For the November-December LD topic, I encourage debaters and coaches to vote for the third resolution: Resolved; The Republic of Korea ought to abolish military conscription. South Korea’s mandatory two-year military conscription for young men is a salient, controversial issue. Proponents emphasize its two aims: national security and nation building, which can act as a force multiplier during emergencies (which are on the horizon considering recent tensions with China) and a social equalizer that reinforces individuals' connections to their nation. Meanwhile, its opposers stress that the system is prone to corruption, grants easier service conditions to celebrities, and entrenches gender inequality since the mandate only applies to men.  The increasing social opposition to conscription also undermines its original goals since a policy that a significant proportion of the public resents cannot create a sense of national unity. Yet this otherwise aff-biased topic is counterbalanced by the neg’s counterplan options – debaters can advocate reforming South Korea’s military conscription policy by applying it to all regardless of gender or loosening its tight restrictions on exemptions. 

The largest issue with the first topic – China’s prioritization of environmental protection over economic growth – is that it is too vague to prove a stasis point for debate, resulting in shallow T debates on the national circuit and definition debates combined with examples that do not clash on local circuits. At first glance, the resolution is neg-biased since “prioritize” implies a forced choice between environmental protection and economic growth, so aff debaters must argue that the government must always place the former over the latter. This is an untenable position because one can always find isolated instances when the government should prioritize economic growth or consider the two equally important since it is impossible to disentangle one from the other. Increasing greenhouse gas emissions will submerge hubs of global commerce underwater, and environmental issues cost the economy billions of dollars each year, with estimates putting the toll at 10 percent of GDP.  On the national circuit, I expect to see the opposite problem: an aff side bias because the aff can advocate for any policy that prioritizes the environment over growth, exploding the neg’s prep burden. 

Although the second topic, Singapore’s Ethnic Integration Policy, is phrased more clearly, I doubt it can sustain two months of debates. For some background, Singapore introduced the EIP in 1989 to curb ethnic segregation between Malays, Chinese, and Indians by limiting the total percentage of neighborhoods that may be occupied by certain ethnicities. I initially expected this topic to favor the aff due to the wealth of evidence that the policy has exacerbated the housing shortage because the disparities in income between social groups make it impossible for lower-income Malays to purchase housing in Chinese and Indian neighborhoods. The EIP has also inflamed racial tensions by allowing families of certain races to sell their flats for higher than others depending on which ethnic groups are eligible to purchase them and has failed to account for the increasing percentage of mixed-race people. Moreover, evidence of the policy decreasing segregation is speculative at best, considering that the areas with an overconcentration of particular ethnic groups have not changed since the 1980s, and neighborhoods with overrepresentation have sprung up since then due to income disparities. However, I doubt there is more than one topical aff (that abolishes the EIP), which rectifies the aff skew yet contributes to somewhat stale debates that cite the same limited literature base in most rounds.

Thus, the military conscription topic offers the clearest resolution with the most balanced ground on both sides, along with advantages and disadvantages that accommodate the “big-stick” impacts to which debaters inevitably run. 

Sources:

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/debating-south-korea-s-mandatory-military-service

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/prioritize

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-climate-change-policies-environmental-degradation

https://www.99.co/singapore/insider/ethnic-integration-policy-eip-hdb/

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-7048-9_3

Eva Lamberson – Military Conscription

Before anything else, I just want to express that I’m generally pretty on board for the NovDec topic set. When they were first released, I definitely criticized them for being way too PF-like (which may still be true,) but the more I thought about them the more I realized that, at the very least, each of these topics are an exciting opportunity to move LDers out of their comfort zones and to argue topics that have serious and extremely relevant ethical and political implications beyond just the United States — so, no matter which topic is picked, I’m hopeful we’ll see some robust, non-US-centric debates.

However, all of that optimism aside, I definitely have a preference, and that preference is (by far) South Korean military conscription. I think this topic offers the best balance, both in terms of argument diversity and side bias. Additionally, I appreciate that the ground on this topic is extremely clear (the China topic, for instance, will be fraught with extensive arguments about what it means to ‘prioritize’ something, which I quite frankly just don’t want to listen to.)

First, it’s worth noting that the subject of conscription in the Republic of Korea is actually creating quite a buzz right now, not only in South Korea but internationally. Policy revisions to the Military Service Act are currently being proposed in order to exempt popular boy band BTS from mandatory service, sparking debates among South Korean officials about the nature of exemptions for artists. As silly as this may sound, the increased scrutiny on South Korean conscription should (hopefully) lead to a number of forthcoming articles relevant to the topic, meaning there should be an abundance of cards to cut!

Even before BTS brought it to the limelight, conscription in South Korea has been the subject of both political and academic debate, so there should be a decent literature base to build off of and a diversity of arguments to examine. For instance, there are practical questions about the dwindling numbers of the South Korean military, meaning that eliminating conscription would be catastrophic, especially given heightened tensions between North and South Korea. On the other hand, many aspects of the Military Service Act have raised serious concerns — for instance, the way conscientious objectors are treated or the ways in which conscription affects the political attitudes of South Korean men.

However, the largest reason that I prefer this topic to the others (which, granted, also have good empirical literature bases) is that, in my opinion, it leaves the most room for principled philosophical positions. Even though the topic specifies a particular nation, I think that positions that are either based on or incorporate wholesale philosophical objections or endorsements of conscription could be both extremely strong and extremely interesting. For instance, affirmatives may suggest that mandatory conscription constitutes an unacceptable violation of liberty, or that (especially given South Korea’s harsh treatment of conscientious objectors) such policies are seriously coercive. On the flip side, a negative could argue that conscription is an obligation we owe the state by virtue of the social contract (though, which side this argument actually flips depends on the social contract theory you’re using,) or that mandatory service bolsters democratic values.

Finally, if anyone read my two cents here and thought “Wow, Eva must really have the right takes on these topics!” you can even choose to rank all three topics in the way that I’m going to — if you’re at all curious, it will be: conscription, environment v. econ, Ethnic Integration Policy. 

Charles Karcher – Environmental Protection

The topic slate for November and December offers some solid options. After a careful review of the three, my choice is Resolved: The People’s Republic of China ought to prioritize environmental protection over economic growth. (If you have been around for long enough, or if you appreciate debate history, you may recognize the wording of the topic - that’s because it’s a blatant nod to the 2014 January/February/TOC topic, Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict.)

Here, I will present a brief note that speaks to why I believe that this topic offers a great division of ground, especially for policy-style and critical argumentation. 

China’s rapid economic growth since 1978 has become - and will be remembered as - an international spectacle. Not only has the country been able to impressively improve the average quality of life and income of its citizens, it has also established itself as an international economic juggernaut, even as Western countries face routine economic hardships which hamper growth and efforts to maximize economic prowess on the global stage. However, such growth has not come without cost. Even during the 2014 topic, China was a hot point of contention - scholars around the world have observed China’s prioritization of economic growth over consideration for the environment. 

The varied environmental challenges that have manifested in China can be used as advantage areas on the affirmative or even be read as plans. One random memory from my childhood is watching a video (that I was too young to fully understand at the time) about the Three Gorges Dam. This project is a great example of how infrastructure projects that yield economically-beneficial fruits can be detrimental to local and regional ecosystems and communities. There are many infrastructure projects that are similar to this, and there is ample discussion about policies that can be passed to mitigate the environmental effects of them.

Prepping and debating against policy affirmatives will be in-depth and engaging. There is a good amount of research on the ‘win-win’ possibilities for economic growth and environmental protection, which will be a useful generic case turn. Moreover, the uniqueness question for economy-related disadvantages is hot at the present. 

The topic also offers fresh areas of exploration for critical perspectives. Critical debaters may choose to research topics such as environmental inequalities in China or the role that Ecofeminism can have in remedying its environmental issues. Negative debaters may choose to critique certain affirmative positions on the grounds of Anthropocentric Futurism. 

One other interesting thing to ponder is the Belt and Road Initiative. (For those who keep tabs on Public Forum topics, this might ring a bell - in 2019, there was a topic about the European Union and the Belt and Road Initiative.) The BRI is a series of infrastructure projects outside of China that has been criticized as neo-colonial and parasitic to local economies. Given that the resolution does not establish any parameters that speak to whether China’s prioritization has to be global or local, it may be worthwhile to investigate what environmental implications these projects have - here’s a start. An investigation of this subsection of the topic literature is sure to be worthwhile for critical and policy debaters alike.

I’ll be excited to judge debates on any of the topics that are on the slate. Since arriving in Taiwan last month, I’ve seen firsthand the cultural influence of BTS and have heard discussions about its relevance to the South Korean conscription system. Although a bit more restricted in terms of research available, the Singapore topic would be a great option for philosophical and critical debates about the role of the state, Foucauldian biopolitics, and the philosophy of race. Perhaps it is because so much of my early exposure to circuit debate was from rounds recorded in the Spring of 2014, but I am personally inclined toward the China topic. It offers a great division of ground about an issue that will become more pressing in the coming decade, and I believe that it is the best choice of the three topics presented.

Debate Participation Survey

Catherine Tarsney is conducting research into debate participation and the return students and coaches get from the activity. She has offered to make this research available to the debate community. Please take a moment to participate; collecting this kind of data is very important to helping to improve our programs and sell debate to the wider community.

Take the survey here.

Fear of Clash by Jake Nebel

I am a pluralistabout the value of LD debate. That is, I believe there are multiple features ofLD that make it good for its participants, including the development ofresearch skills, communication skills, and critical thinking skills. (Thedebate about such values and their relative weight is the crucial question inthe impacts section of a theory argument.)  

Some features of debate, I believe, have a status akin toprimary goods. Rawls defined primary goods as things that a rational persontypically wants, regardless of his or her other values – e.g., basic rights,opportunity, and wealth. It seems to me that clash is one of the primarygoods of LD. 

All plausible views about the value of LD are likely to agree onthe importance of clash. They may differ with respect to its relative weight,but it will always be significant for one main reason: if the values of ouractivity did not require clash, then they wouldn't be uniquely facilitated,realized, or promoted by a debate event. If you sever the linkbetween clash (the criterion) and your supreme goods of LD (the value), then itwill be hard for you to defend the value. To test this hypothesis, try usingyour value to justify the importance of LD to an impartial audience(e.g., persuading someone to invest time into the activity) without grantingsignificant derivative value to clash. 

Clash explains, in part, judges' strong presumption in favor oftopicality. In principle, I love debates about epistemology, IR theory, publicpolicy, and debate itself. But, unless the resolution is clearly about thesethings, I would not expect the clash on such topics to be very good in LD –probably because both sides are best prepared to debate the resolution. Otherthings being equal, we determine who did the better debating by evaluatingarguments about the resolution, because that is the clash for which bothsides are best prepared. 

There may be reasons to deviate from the resolution. Thosereasons must be weighed against the benefits of clash, and the other reasons todebate the topic. 

There are other strategies that detract from clash, withoutcompensating for that loss with an outweighing benefit. I think we shoulddiscourage such strategies, and perhaps debaters should make theoreticalarguments for voting against them.

• Pre-standards arguments typically reduce clash,by shifting the debate's focus away from case arguments and by giving debatersan incentive not to answer objections to their position. Conditional advocacieshave a similar effect. 

• Preclusive standards also seem to detract from clash.The point of a narrow, preclusive standard is to make it acceptable not toanswer the other side's arguments about the resolution. Maybe this is justifiedby the fact that the other side's arguments really don't need to beanswered – e.g., because their impacts really don't matter. But thatis hardly ever the case. When it is the case, I agree that the frameworksatisfies the demands of clash. 

• Arguments that "trigger" new frameworks,positions, or advocacies detract from clash because they reward debaters fornot answering objections to their position. That is how the contingent offenseis accessed. 

• Many spikes reduce clash, but it seems hard to draw ameaningful distinction between bad spikes and good preclusive arguments. Hereis a rough first pass: spikes about theory arguments, and defensive argumentsthat do not support the resolution or the affirmative advocacy, avoid clashbecause they transform rebuttals into wars of competing extensions. Most 1ARsthese days are just a series of extensions with minimal comparison, and thereseems to be a direct relation between the proportion of AC speech time taken upby irrelevant spikes and the proportion of 1AR time taken up by mererepetition. 

• How about offensive theory arguments withviolations (as opposed to spikes which merely frame the theory debate)? I agreethat theory detracts from clash. But I also think good theory argumentscompensate us with clash-based benefits (e.g., topicality). And I think thedebate about whether theory should be a reverse voting issue turns mostly on questionsof clash. I happen to think that reverse voting issues detract from clash morethan they contribute to it. 

• Activist positions which ask for the ballot forreasons unrelated to the resolution usually detract from clash. They can meetthe burden of clash when there is a violation or link to the opponent or to theresolution. But when there is no such violation or link, the advantages ofvoting for the activist position must be weighed against the significantdetriment to clash. 

• Plan-inclusive counter-plans may seemto detract from clash because they make much of the AC irrelevant andshift the debate towards one difference between the two sides. But if theaffirmative narrows the topic to a plan, this shift may be justified. After all,the plan avoids clash on large portions of the resolution, and the affirmativedebater should be responsible for debating all aspects of the plan. Word PICsare probably illegitimate because they avoid clash even when the affirmativedefends the whole resolution. 

If we try to systematize this list, I think we can formulate ageneral test for whether a strategy detracts from clash in an objectionableway:

• First, we should ask whether the argument's strategicfunction is to avoid debate on some issue. 

• Second, we should ask whether the debater should beexpected to debate that issue. 

The second question is difficult, and may only be resolvable byevaluating other theory impacts or other arguments in the debate – e.g.,whether the warrants for the standard really do justify why some impact haszero weight, or whether the affirmative should really be expected to defend theportion of the advocacy with which the PIC disagrees. 

This general test, however, may serve three purposes.

First, it may help debaters to make theoretical objections to,or to formulate theoretical defenses of, certain strategies. 

Second, it may help judges evaluate clash-based impacts on thetheory debate. 

Third, it may help debaters and coaches deliberate about theirown strategies. I think this may be the most important. If you want toget better at debate, you should not run away from clash. Clash is the core ofdebate. You will improve at debate and debate-related skills if you choose toembrace it. 

Debaters Against Sexism: Taking a Stand

We received an email from the people organizing Debaters Against Sexism:

Attached is an article that we would like published as soon as possible; I hope it'll be pretty self-explanatory when you read this. I, along with Catherine Tarsney, Diana Li, Karlyn Gorski, Bekah Boyer, Mike Bietz, and many other debaters have been working on this nonstop for the past two days, and we'd like to get this published as soon as possible.

Debaters Against Sexism: Taking a Stand

To the debatecommunity:

We begin by deciding to write a pledge. We need a beginning, astepping stone. This pledge is meant to provide a concrete platform for thecommunity to demonstrate our readiness to confront the issue of genderdiscrimination in debate, and to fight back. We will use this as a springboard todemand change in the community. There is so much we can do, and we’ve decidedto stop waiting to do it. Of course, it doesn’t end with the pledge. Butit starts with a commitment—and every signature counts.

A Pledge to Fight Gender Discrimination

Preface:

We are tired of online discussions about gender disparities indebate dying out without resulting in any concrete changes. We are tired ofsexism becoming the talk of the day, and then fading away as people settle backinto their normal routines of cutting cards and trying to win tournaments. Weare tired of waiting for someone else to do something, so we are taking a standnow.

The biggest problem is not that tournament rules are written todisadvantage women, or that workshop and institute policies don't account forsexual harassment (although policies lacking enforcement are meaningless). Thebiggest problem is the way that we as a community behave. Gender discriminationis so prevalent because we fail to embrace mature dialogue, underestimate thepower of disparaging remarks, and stigmatize victims.

We need to examine the way we think and behave as a community;no real change can occur until we do.

To that end, we have written a pledge for debaters to take asa stand against discrimination of gender identity/expression in debate:

I believe that alldebaters, judges, and coaches, regardless of gender identity/expression deserveto feel safe and supported at tournaments, at workshops and institutes, andwithin their teams. By signing this pledge, I promise to:

●    Avoid usingdiscriminatory language or slurs when speaking about other debaters, judges,and coaches.

●    Be willing to a)point out problematic language when I hear it and b) accept responsibility if Isay something harmful out of ignorance or privilege.

●    Support effortsto end gender discrimination, bullying, and sexual harassment, and encourageothers to take a stand.

●    Intervene, if Isafely can, or tell an adult about situations where members of the communityare being sexually harassed or bullied.

●    Respect andempower victims to have confidence in themselves.

I will not be abystander. I will take a stand against gender discrimination in debate.

Please visit http://www.debatersagainstsexism.org/ to joinus in signing the pledge. This website will also be the host of our futureefforts to create change. By introducing this into the community dialogue, wehope to call attention to the words and actions we take. Sexism is oftensubtle, but ignoring the subtleties will only perpetuate the problem. We havesigned this pledge as a reminder to ourselves to be aware of and sensitive togender discrimination, sexual harassment, and bullying whenever it occurs. Wehope you will, too.

Pledge Signatories:

1. Elana Leone, The Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School, MD

2. Annie Kors, Harvard Westlake School, CA

3. Karlyn Gorski, University of Chicago, IL

4. Shania Hunt, Northland Christian School, TX

5. Catherine Tarsney, University of Chicago, IL

6. Megan N. Nubel, West Des Moines Valley High School, IA

7. Bekah Boyer,Colleyville Heritage ‘09, Southern MethodistUniversity ‘13, Greenhill School TX

8. Rebecca Kuang, Greenhill School, TX

9. Jessica Levy, Walt Whitman High School, MD

10. Cindi Timmons, Greenhill School, TX

11. Allie Woodhouse, Winston Churchill High School, TX

12. Lucy Korsakov, West Des Moines Valley High School, IA

Three Ways to Improve Your Perceptual Dominance by Adam Torson

Howan argument is presented should be less important than the quality of theargument. Nevertheless, perceptually dominating the round can pay dividends.Looking like you know what you’re doing is one of the big steps between noviceand varsity level debate. Perceptual dominance is one reason some students getconsistently higher speaker scores. Finally, even in very high level roundsjudges will ultimately be left to evaluate the quality of arguments. Thisevaluation is inevitably influenced by how the argument is presented,especially for judges who don’t feel especially secure in their decisions. It’seasy to use perceptual dominance as a heuristic for who is right on a givenissue or in the round as a whole.

So,a few tips to help you improve your perceptual dominance:

1. Project acalm and confident demeanor.

Thebest debaters look calm and confident. There are many intangibles that go intoprojecting this demeanor, but it’s good to conceptualize it as a balancebetween extremes.

Calmis somewhere in between a) the foaming at the mouth, hectic, angry debater andb) the lackadaisical, doesn’t fill his time,I’m-here-because-my-parents-made-me debater.

Confidentis somewhere in between a) the cocky, condescending, thinks he won every rounddebater and b) the shy, soft-spoken, nervous about all his arguments debater.

Confidenceis notoriously elusive; the time-honored “fake it ‘till you make it” advicewill get you a long way toward cultivating self-belief. Another good techniqueis to do drills in front of a mirror to observe your own mannerisms anddemeanor. You may be surprised by what your non-verbals are saying about you.While demeanor is a multi-faceted thing, there are three touchstones that mightbe helpful to think about.

First,if you can’t help getting angry, you probably need to examine your demeanor.Overt expressions of anger are rarely situationally appropriate in a debateround. Reasonableness is built into the ethos of the activity. Some argumentsseem to have an innately more emotional tone, e.g. positions that passionatelycondemn a particular injustice. That type of emotion is justified and sometimeshelpful, but it should always be directed at passionate advocacy rather thanhostility toward an opponent.

Second,be cognizant of the volume at which you speak. You would be amazed how quicklyyour deportment can change simply by virtue of speaking louder or softer. Ifyou feel like you don’t have a great deal of confidence, try to increase yourvolume by 20%, and do drills even louder than that. Most often people have aproblem with speaking to softly rather than too loudly, but if you are gettinga look of surprise from judges when you start speaking you might considerlowering the volume a tad.

Finally,avoid asking rhetorical questions. They are almost always more confidentlyexpressed as statements. Instead of asking “Do you really think that a studentsurvey is as rigorous as a study published in a peer-reviewed journal?” you canargue “A study published in a peer-reviewed journal is much more rigorous thana student survey.” The problem with inviting a judge to answer a question inher own mind is that she might not think the answer is quite so self-evident asyou do. Better to express the same idea as an argument.

2. Give status updates.

Animportant technique for perceptual dominance is to frequently update the judgeon what is happening in the round. More specifically, as you go along tell thejudge about the significance of your arguments not just in argumentative termsbut also in terms of constructing a reason for her decision on the ballot. Forexample, after defending and extending your standard you might say “That meansthat all I have to do to win is to show that valuing rehabilitation overretribution minimizes suffering.” After extending a contention you might say“That’s the first place you can pull the trigger on the AC,” or “That’s thefirst place you can exclude the NC.”

Thisis perceptually dominant for several reasons. First, status updates make itlook like you are in command of your strategy and executing it purposively.Instead of wandering around the flow without a plan you appear to be telling acohesive story about what is happening in the round. Second, it is easy to highlightthe fact that you are layering. “This is the first place you reject the NC,this is the second place, this is the third place.” Finally, status updates area framing device. They allow you to tell the judge which arguments are the mostimportant so as to cast your opponent’s strongest argument as a secondaryconsideration.

3. Pressweakness in CX

Cross-examinationis critical for establishing perceptual dominance. The best way to do this isto press your opponent to explain weak or missing links in their casepositions. If your opponent’s argument doesn’t make sense to you, you shouldstart with the assumption that the argument is non-sense rather than theassumption that you just don’t understand it. Don’t let them obfuscate orotherwise wriggle out of your question. Keep asking them about the link untileither they give you a real answer or you are satisfied that the judgeunderstands that there is no link.

Notonly will this kind of press set up the refutation strategy for your rebuttals(and sometimes produce some useful admissions), but it will let you takecommand of the round on a perceptual basis. Some of the best cross-examinationsI have seen have dealt with only one or two issues. But, they were criticalissues, and pressing on them both served strategic interests and helped theinterlocutor to establish the tone for the round.

Goforth with confidence!

Protecting Persons, Not Positions by Rebekah Boyer

Rebekah Boyer asked if we would post this to our website.

Protecting Persons, Not Positions by Rebekah Boyer

My name is Bekah Boyer – What I have to say below is my ownopinion and has nothing to do with any institutions or people with whom I maybe affiliated. I apologize for any triggersin this article, but I need a forum to speak.

I was never a “great” debater; my butt was constantlywhooped by those who worked harder than I did. Coincidently, that self-samebutt was apparently more interesting to some people in the community than myidentity. I was harassed, insulted, and demeaned by members of my own team andothers. Sometimes things were as trivial as “go make me a sandwich,” most ofthe time though, things were escalated to a demand for oral sex as a price fora card that the boys were already sharing. Troubled, alone, and not knowingwhat to do – I spun into a depression.  Iwasn’t a lone wolf; I just had no one in which to confide. Thankfully, an adultin the community noticed that I wasn’t doing well.  She kept me from quitting debate and/or doinganything drastically permanent for a fleeting feeling.

I got help. The kicker is I had to tell an adult first.

As adults in the community, we have a responsibility aseducators and as chaperones, ethically and legally, to support these kids. Thequestion is: does this mean I have to vote on it?

No. It does not.

I had the pleasure of judging two very talented debaters atthe Harvard bid round last year, during which a personal narrative was read inthe AC. The ballot story indicated that I must vote for the debater who readthe narrative so she could advance and “spread the message.”

I sat. I voted her down for a simple reason: she lost on theflow –the other debater had decisively won a conceded, weighed argument againstthe nature of her performance while she was busy discussing what had happenedto her.

After the round, I approached her - I came out to her as asurvivor of domestic and sexual abuse. I thanked her for sharing her story,asked her if she needed access to resources for survivors, and begged her towarn those watching next time. I proceeded to have my panic attack in private,and subsequently went to prep out one of the debaters for whom I wasresponsible who was about to hit her in the next round.

Does my decision render me a foe to the solidarity of themovement? Absolutely not: I am a vehement advocate for survivors’ rights, bothas president of the feminist organization on my campus and as a personaladvocate and open “safe space.”

Space is a critical contributor to agency: aphenomenological approach would dictate that I evaluate lived experience, andas such, I must pay attention to where that lived experience has occurred. Adebate round is not a forum for crucifixion. If you are a survivor your storyis important... especially to professionals. I have seen many men and women,cis and trans, walk through the doors of “my” women’s center, seeking help. Iam not trying to say that everyone must decide to prosecute, that is a personaldecision left to those affected. During instances in which someone’s autonomywas so vilely infringed on, it is vitally important that all possible avenuesare open to them.

 If you decide thatreading your story in a debate round is crucial to your healing process, it isimportant to remember three things:

1)     This is not the time for specificity. I may be ajudge, but without a funny wig and a gavel,  I am powerless. Reading a narrative of anunprosecuted crime is very different than reading a narrative about living lifein prison, for example.  Most livedexperiences, when witnessed, do not immediately implicate the viewer to a courtof law. In being specific, you have made your opponent, judge, and audiencewitnesses: If they do not take action, they could be held legally complicit orin contempt of the court. If you truly want to punish the accused, there arebetter avenues to do so.

2)     For the love of all kittens, please disclose thenature of the case to the judge and to your opponent and to the audience beforethe case is read. With 1 in 4 adolescent women and 1 in 10 adolescent menaffected by sexual violence, you can’t “hedge your bets” with who is in theroom. I was only able to handle the round at Harvard because I had my medicinewith me.

3)     Instead of asking for a ballot, which could makesome inferentially doubt your sincerity, donate your speech time to the“cause.” Silence, when speech is expected, is often more powerful than anythingelse. Moreover, should you choose to ask for the ballot, clearly articulate whythe opponent ought to lose the round or why you must be voted up.

If you hit one of these nuanced narratives what should youdo? Firstly, do not pivot your attack around a victim-blaming mentality: it isnot your job to cast aspersions on either of the characters mentioned. (Thisissue is entirely avoided if the person running the case avoids specificity.)We may indict authors, researchers, and philosophers but they are speaking to auniversal or etic experience; in narratives, it is all about perspective, whichcannot be “wrong” since they are not necessarily objective facts. What youSHOULD do is question the technicality within the case: articulate problemswith the internal warrants of the ballot story. If they do not read a ballotstory, the best thing to do is merely to point that out, thank them for sharingtheir story, and move on to your case.

Though I support and understand the educational value ofmicro political cases, I strongly urge people not to run micro politicalpositions that speak on a personal, unprosecuted crime -especially in front ofme --- I will write to the guidance counselors and principals of your schoolsand I suggest that other adults do the same. We have too much groupthink indebate: we cannot let someone who is suffering fall to the wayside merelybecause of a bystander effect. As adults we must take responsibility and notifythe authorities. Though an event may have occurred in debate, we must keep inmind that we are not a sovereign nation; there is a “debate world” and a “realworld” and the two are inextricably linked together.  So though a round may not be the ideal forumfor this issue, it is an issue that the debate community must address – buthow?

1)     Coaches can work closely with their school’sguidance counselors. Debaters are smart kids; smart kids are generally morevulnerable. We have to remember that these young adults look up to adults morethan even a narcissistic coach would expect. Treat your debaters as humanbeings, not as trophy-cases. They have real life problems and unless you aretrained to handle that, you need to work with someone who has the training.

2)     Tournaments hosted at schools can, at minimum,have cards detailing local resources for confidential and legal reporting ofassault/harassment available in the registration packet. At best, they canencourage their guidance counselor or a representative of an assistingorganization to be available at the tournament so that immediate action can betaken.

3)     Camps, in addition to having a licensedcounselor on staff, can create anonymous exit surveys for attendees to reportinstances in which they were threatened or felt unsafe. Again, localand national resources should be attached to these.

4)     Judges, after hearing a case, should figure outif another adult knows what has happened. They can then take steps to ensure that the right people know what todo. There is no confidentiality clause in debate; in fact, most rounds areexplicitly open to the public. Protect yourself and the kids you have judged byreporting.

The next step is to encourage yourcoaches, judges, schools, and opponents to follow these measures or any othersthat may come up in the dialogue surrounding this issue. We need to heal as acommunity as well.

If you, or someone you know, is avictim of sexual or gender-based violence, please tell someone who has theability to help you. You are not alone. Here are some resources at your disposal:

Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network  - http://www.rainn.org/get-help/national-sexual-assault-hotlineor call 1800656HOPE

To seek multidisciplinary training on thisissue: SATI - http://www.mysati.com/

Or select a local center: http://centers.rainn.org/

Your local Planned Parenthood and your computerbrowser are always  good places to start!

I am happy to answer any questionsabout this article. You can reach me at rlboyer@smu.edu; please indicate that this is what you are writing about in the subject line.

Frameworks Wide and Narrow (Part III) by Jake Nebel

People have asked me why I think a wide framework is a goodstrategy. I understand their confusion, since preclusive standards have suchobvious strategic merits that may never seem worth sacrificing. I don't think awide framework is always strategic, but its strategic virtues include thefollowing:

1. You can avoid many objections to theories that are entirelyoutcome-based or entirely rule-based. Under a wide framework, you can sometimesjust "no link" these objections, and other times you can just concedethe objections and impact to your standard in the means-based or ends-based waythat the objections permit. If your position's offense includes both kinds ofimpacts, you can win this time tradeoff.

2. Your framework can be both shorter and more difficult toanswer. Shorter, because it takes less time to establish that something isvaluable (e.g., human dignity) than to establish that we must treat that valuein only one specific way (e.g., maximizing it). More difficult to answer, fortwo reasons. First, some of the objections which you can avoid are thestrongest ones. There are more and better objections to the view that we arealways obligated to maximize the sum total of wellbeing in the universe (e.g.,anti-aggregation, repugnant conclusion) than there are to the view thatwellbeing is intrinsically good. Second, you will often have access tobetter arguments for the standard. There are good topic-specific reasons whythe criminal justice system should care about consistency, which do not saythat consistency is the only thing that matters, or thatconsistency is only valuable as a means-based constraintrather than an end.

3. Framework debate on the national circuit today is, by andlarge, pretty bad in a few ways. Let me preface my explanation by saying: it'sreally good in the sense that it's impressive that debatersare familiar with philosophical arguments that they might otherwise notencounter -- although it's unclear how much that's due to reading and research,as opposed to merely recycling. :( But it's bad in that it's often a battle ofcompeting assertions, bastardizations, implausible claims, and lines andarrows. The cards are often read way too fast for someone who's never heardthem to understand them -- a practice which judges shouldn't accept, even ifthey understand the cards after much repetition. The arguments are rarelytailored to the topic, they usually trade off with substantive argumentation,and the weighing debate is often just rhetoric and sophistry. My point is thatyou can please your judges and win their ballots by making plausible frameworkarguments that are germane to the resolution's context, reflect thephilosophical literature more accurately, and return the debate to theresolution's conflict scenario. Even if you don't share these complaints, youshould agree that a lot of judges are reasonably frustrated aboutframework debate in the status quo. 

4. Wide frameworks increase your flexibility in the rebuttals.In a plan debate, why have more than one impact scenario? Because you can weighbetween the scenarios and prioritize the advantages in the 1AR. Thesame flexibility comes with wide frameworks. You can weigh between yourcontentions in the rebuttal with philosophical argumentation. Of course, thenegative can start the weighing debate early -- and you can preemptit with weighing arguments in the AC. But that's also true for policyaffirmatives with multiple advantages. This strategy is, in functional terms,no different. 

I think the above considerations show that wideframeworks have a strategic place in LD, without giving an illegitimateadvantage to one side.

Frameworks, Wide and Narrow (Part II) by Jake Nebel

I consider utilitarianism to be a narrow standard, because eventhough lots of different things have impacts to wellbeing, the standard assumesthat consequences (in terms of wellbeing) are all that matters. Deontological standardsthat exclude all consequences are also narrow standards. The default framework,I think, should be a wide framework according to which consequences matter, butare not all that matters. 

Some would object to this view on the grounds that a standardmust be either exclusively ends-based or exclusively means-based. 

I believe this claim originated as a theory argument ("PhilSpec") in 2007. Since then, it has grown into a kind of conventionalwisdom. I'm not sure whether people accept it because they mistakenly thinkthat non-consequentialists don't care about consequences; they seem toreinforce each other. I have also heard people justify this view on thegrounds that a wide framework, which considers both ends and means, orleaves their prioritization an open question, can't sufficiently weigh impacts.That would be bad because it prevents your opponent from impacting offense toyour standard, and because it makes the judge unable to decide the roundobjectively. 

I don't share those worries because the same debates aboutends-versus-means happen. They become weighing arguments. The upshot is thatthe opponent can impact offense to your standard just as well, and the judgecan use the standard to evaluate impacts, with the impacts' weight being determinedby philosophical argument.  

Under the view that a standard must be exclusively ends-based ormeans-based, the vast majority of non-consequentialist views (and many of themost plausible ones, in my opinion) would be excluded. If you share my viewthat LD framework debate is only valuable because of the opportunity to learnhow to argue about and apply philosophy, then this is a bad result. Themeans-ends dichotomy also seems to exclude virtue-based considerations aboutthe agent's dispositions. (You can, in principle, translate thoseconsiderations into means- or ends-based ideas. But, just like"consequentialized" translations of deontological theories, theresulting view may not be the most plausible version, so why assume it's wrongat the outset?) The norm against wide frameworks also excludes value pluralism,Rossian deontology, and commonsense morality. 

You might think, though, that even if there is comparison goingon, a wide framework is just too complicated to work. In a short debate round,we have to simplify things and ignore considerations that are otherwiserelevant to questions of applied ethics and public policy. But, first, whileit's true that we tolerate oversimplification, westill favor accuracy: although debaters are free to make sweeping,implausible claims about the world, those claims lose against specific evidencethat shows a more accurate (and usually more complex) picture. And, second, LDdebaters utilized wide frameworks for years, and judges regularly decidedrounds (with debaters' approval) using two different standards. Narrow,preclusive standards have been around as long as I've been debating, but theidea that standards must be preclusive and must beexclusively means- or ends-based is a recent development. The reason for itspopularity has more to do with its strategic advantages than with its truth orwith the incoherence of its alternative.

Frameworks, Wide and Narrow (Part I) by Jake Nebel

Frameworks, Wide and Narrow (Part I)

A wide framework accepts the importance of morethan one kind of ethical consideration. This kind of framework used to be awidespread practice in national circuit LD, and it may even have been anunstated default assumption of many judges. But, over the years, wide frameworkshave been mostly replaced by narrow, preclusive frameworks that only count onekind of moral consideration as relevant. My aim in this series is to pushagainst today's somewhat conventional wisdom that wide frameworks are untenablein LD. 

Before I do that, I need to clear up a common misconception.Debaters often assume that consequences only matter on one view:utilitarianism. There are two reasons why this is misguided. The first is thatutilitarianism is different from consequentialism, although debaters oftenconflate them. According to consequentialism (roughly), the rightness of an actis just a function of how good its consequences are -- in other words,consequences are all that matters when it comes to our moral obligations.But consequentialism says nothing about which consequences count as good.Utilitarianism is consequentialism plus the view that utility, or wellbeing, isthe only intrinsic good. You could  be a consequentialist about fairness,freedom, or fine dining, or about a plurality of intrinsic goods. I knowmany debaters like to say "util" as an abbreviation for anythinghaving to do with consequences, but it's simply misleading. 

This distinction may be especially important on this topic.Suppose the retributive theory of punishment means that deserved punishment isintrinsically good. Debaters sometimes argue that this means retributivism mustbe non-consequentialist. Not so. We can be consequentialists about deservedpunishment. But it is incompatible with utilitarianism, sinceutilitarians deny that things other than wellbeing are intrinsically good.There are lots of thorny issues here, including whether "retribution"means the retributive theory of punishment, but let's leave them aside fornow. 

But second, even if consequentialism (not just utilitarianism)is false, non-consequentialists can still care about consequences. In fact, thevast majority of them do! John Rawls, one of the most influential deontologicaltheorists, wrote, "All ethical doctrines worth our attention takeconsequences into account in judging rightness. One which did not would simplybe irrational, crazy." I am inclined to agree with Rawls, but even if youdisagree with him, you should still grant that the view is kosher in a debate round. 

For example, almost everyone would agree that, other thingsbeing equal, we ought to make the world better rather than worse. Butdeontologists would add that other things are not equal whenthere is some relevant side constraint, special relationship, strict duty, orother kind of consideration. Consequences still matter on this view -- justthink of them as outweighed by the side constraint (or whatever theoutcome-independent consideration happens to be). When I say"outweighed," I don't mean that the outcome is worse because theconstraint is violated -- this view is not like ruleconsequentialism. I mean that, although the outcome may be better, the act iswrong in virtue of violating some constraint. This kind of wide frameworkis not just coherent, but very plausible! 

In the next article, I plan to argue against the view that astandard must be exclusively ends-based or exclusively means-based. 

POSTSCRIPT

There are other assumptions about what deontological standardsimply and rule out. For example, some debaters simply assume that adeontological standard means that intent is the only thing that matters --excluding merely foreseen consequences (in criminal law, the distinction isbetween "purposeful" and "unpurposeful" consequences).Given that most deontologists are not this extreme, I don't think any standardgets this distinction for free, or any similar distinction that wouldcompletely exclude offense that would otherwise be relevant to thestandard. 

One final comment on the topic of deontological standards.Debaters sometimes claim that if both sides violate a deontological standard,then both sides are merely permissible. This is defended on the grounds thatdeontological wrongdoings are binary, not scalar, and cannot be compared. Ifthat were true, then murder could not be a worse or more severe wrongdoing thanpetty theft. No deontologist  thinks that. So there must be some way toweigh deontological violations; they don't just lead to permissibility. 

*Thanks to Eric Palmer, Jeff Liu, and Larry Liu for discussionon some of these issues (in this article and in the rest of the series) at MBA. 

Three Framework Arguments That Aren’t Worth Your Time

Space in your AC is a precious commodity. You have sixminutes to lay out the bulk of your argumentative arsenal, and prepare towithstand a host of more or less predictable Negative strategies. ManyAffirmative debaters make the core of their strategic logic a state of nearparanoia about wonky tactics the Neg might deploy. Dense, analytic, spikeyframeworks are designed to set traps into which the unsuspecting Negative willfall if they try to up-layer with theory or purposefully muddy the round. I’msympathetic to this instinct; many obnoxious Negative tactics do screw uprounds on a regular basis. Nevertheless, I think that many of the frameworkarguments Affirmatives run in response don’t have the strategic utility theyimagine. Below are three common framework arguments that I believe aren’t generallyworth your time when compared to better substantive development of a positionaladvocacy.

1. Presumption

Many debaters start their case positions asking the judge topresume Affirmative in the absence of offense, generally for a host oftheoretical reasons like Affirmatives losing more often, time skew, Neg flex,etc. In a world where many judges think that skeptical defense against astandard can somehow constitute a take-out of the entire case position, I guessthis scenario looks somewhat more likely than I think it really is. Similarly,inflexible requirements for how thoroughly arguments need to be re-explained inan extension increase the probability that a judge will decide that the roundis utterly devoid of offense. (I admit to being guilty of this type of rigidityin the past).

Nonetheless, at the end of the day I don’t think you getmuch strategic advantage from a presumption spike. Trying to wash the standardsdebate by piling on dozens of blippy, non-comparative objections is a weakstrategy. Not only does it require you to essentially abandon your substantivestrategy for the round, it also requires you to make your judge so uncertainthat they disregard all offense entirely.  Similarly, proforma objections to your opponent’s extensions areunlikely to convince a judge that there is no reasonable risk of offense in theround.

This argument just tempts you to spend time extending it asa “backup” plan in case your real strategy doesn’t work. Not only is thatperceptually weak, but it trades off with execution of your substantivestrategy in rebuttals.  Your instinctshould not be to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. Thebest affirmative debaters never winon presumption. They win by executing a deliberate, meaningfully plannedstrategy that actually engages with the substance of their opponents’positions.

2. Prefer AffirmativeInterps

It’s also common for the AC to argue that the judge shouldprefer reasonable Aff interps. This is usually justified by the idea that Negcould always run some type of topicality argument, and if that argument wins itkills 6 of the Aff’s 13 minutes of speech time. The basic idea is to preventthe Neg from up-layering with theory that they are going to kick in the 2NRanyway.

I think this argument is problematic for several reasons.The first is that it doesn’t actually solve the problem. All topicalityobjections will claim that the Aff interpretation is unreasonable, which meansthat the debate on the theory flow has to play itself out regardless of thisspike. If the Neg interp is manifestly unreasonable, then you can make thesesame arguments as “Err Aff on theory” in the 1AR, where they are morepersuasive and more strictly necessary. Moreover, this argument doesn’t preventthe Neg from up-layering with other kinds of theory objections. There are manystock theory arguments that don’t plausibly criticize any Affirmative “interp” (unless“prefer Aff interps” means “the Aff should be allowed to do whatever it choseto do,” which seems like a strange way to read this argument).

Second, this argument is too often used to bolster somewonky, hidden interpretation in the AC that the Neg failed to recognize. “TheNeg conceded the spike in the third argument that he couldn’t runcounter-plans, and the spike in the fifth argument that he couldn’t rundisadvantages, so there is no risk of negative offense. Remember he alsoconceded that you prefer Aff interpretations, so don’t let him challenge itnow.” Good grief, I guess the idea is that turnabout is fair play when it comesto ridiculous theory. ACs should just have an actually reasonablyinterpretation, and then they will be ahead on any silly theory objection theNeg runs. Why give the 1NC legitimate grounds to run the theory arguments youare so afraid of?

3. I don’t have todefend implementation.

This argument has a long history, but I was surprised tohear it come roaring back to life at the Glenbrooks. It is and has always beenunequivocal nonsense. Impacts come from an advocacy. It makes no sense to say thatthe resolution is normatively good unlessit is implemented. To say that the resolution is normatively good isprecisely to say that it should be “implemented.” I haven’t the foggiest ideawhat it means to affirm or negate but not defend implementation.

I think when debaters say something like this, they arereally trying to make one of two arguments. First, they might be trying to saythat they don’t defend a specificimplementation. In other words, they don’t defend a plan, they affirm the “wholeresolution.” Presumptively this means that the Affirmative should defend all topical advocacies (which is usuallythe opposite of what they are trying to accomplish). The response to sillycounter-warrants or DAs to obscure Aff advocacies is to say that they havelittle epistemic weight because they are not representative of the resolutionin general (they are extreme or obscure examples), not that they have no linkbecause “the Aff doesn’t have to defend implementation.”

The second type of argument this debater might be trying tomake is that their impacts can be non-consequentialist. This is really astandards level argument about which types of impacts are weightier thanothers, not a framework argument about what the Aff has to defend and not. Evenif your impacts link to non-consequentialist standards, they still derive fromyour advocacy. It may be that we should adopt the resolution because it isrequired by a Kantian moral rule (for example) and not because it has good consequences.But that just means that the implementationof the resolution is required by the rule, not that you don’t have to defendimplementation in the first place. If implementing the resolution in fact violated a Kantian moral rule, thatwould be a reason not to do it. A turn to that effect couldn’t be “no-linked”because the Aff claims not to defend implementation.

Conclusion

The best frameworks are short and sweet: A reasonableinterpretation of the resolution to give you strong, substantive answers tosilly theory objections, followed by deep development of a substantiveadvocacy. Put away the bag of tricks, it’s a crutch that’s keeping you fromdebating at your very best.

Three Common Misunderstandings of Fiat

“Fiat” is a Latin word meaning “Let it bedone.” In debate, “fiat” refers to a debater’s right to assume that heradvocacy will happen. In other words, when a debater runs a plan or acounterplan, she does not have to argue that the plan is likely to happen. She needs only to argue that it would be netadvantageous if the plan wereimplemented.

To say that a plan is politically unpopularand therefore unlikely to pass is no answer. The basic logic is that in debatewe want to argue about whether an advocacy is good or bad, not whether it islikely to be implemented. On the current topic, the Affirmative might arguethat the United States should implement a single-payer healthcare system. The Negativemay argue that this is a bad idea relative to the status quo or a competitivecounterplan, but she may not argue “that would never get through Congress.” TheAffirmative debater gets to fiat thatthe plan would pass congress.

This notion is not entirely uncontroversial,and there are many complexities that are beyond the scope of this article, butthe basic idea that a debater has a right to fiat her advocacy is widelyaccepted. Despite this, I see many rounds in which there is confusion about therole of fiat. I hope to clear up a few common misconceptions.

1.Pre-Fiat versus Post-Fiat

Many LD debaters have a hard time parsing thedistinction between pre-fiat and post-fiat arguments. This is not surprising,given that the nature of fiat in more traditional LD cases is ambiguous. (For agood discussion of this issue, see Scott Phillips’ article in thevictorybriefs.com archives on fiat in Kritik debate).

A “post-fiat” impact is one that happens inthe hypothetical world where the affirmative advocacy (or a counter-planadvocacy) is implemented. “If weimplement a single-payer healthcare system, millions of people who wereotherwise uninsured will have access to healthcare services.” We don’t imaginethat this impact will actually happenby virtue of the judge voting affirmative – it’s what would happen if the agentin the resolution (in this case the United States) did what the affirmativeadvocates.

A “pre-fiat” impact is one that we imaginereally occurs as a result of something happening in the debate round itself.“If the judge votes for the Negative debater, it will teach the Affirmativedebater not to use offensive rhetoric.” “If the judge votes for the Negative,other debaters will be deterred from using the abusive tactics the Affirmativeused.” Arguments that commonly have pre-fiat impacts include:

1. Theory: Adebater should lose or an argument should be disregarded in order to preservethe fairness or educational value of the debate.

2. Kritiks: Adebater should lose or an argument should be rejected because the debater usedrhetoric which is offensive or makes problematic assumptions. Sometimesdebaters will make similar arguments without a full Kritik shell; these wecommonly call “discourse” arguments.

3. Performance: Thejudge should vote for one debater or another to affirm a praiseworthy speechact (e.g. one that helps the participants to better understand the gravity ofoppressive practices). For example, a debater may read a narrative written bysomeone struggling without health insurance to convey the seriousness ofAmerica’s uninsurance problem and inspire concrete action from fellow debatersand judges.

Debaters typically assume that pre-fiatimpacts should be lexically prior to post-fiat impacts because the former reallyhappen (supposedly). This assumption can be challenged by the idea thatresolving the substance of the post-fiat debate is more important than thepre-fiat impacts. I’ll leave it to you to fill in the details of the argumentson both sides of that issue.

2.Debaters fiat advocacies, not standards.

A common mistake in LD is to fail todistinguish between a debater’s advocacyand her standard. The standard,usually a value and criterion, is typically a moral or political rule which thedebater claims is most germane to resolving the question posed by theresolution. If I propose that Utilitarianism should be the standard on thecurrent topic, I am suggesting that whether we implement a universal healthcaresystem turns on whether doing so maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain.

An advocacy, on the other hand, is what courseof action the debater proposes for the agent of the resolution. In the presenttopic, I might advocate that the United States (the agent in the resolution)implement a single-payer healthcare system.

The standard is NOT part of the advocacy. Inother words, I don’t “fiat” the standard (assume that it will be implemented);I only fiat the advocacy (what course of action the agent will take). I don’thave to argue that the United States should adopta utilitarian mindset and then implement a single-payer system as a result.I fiat that a single-payer systemwill be implemented, and evaluatethat course of action by using the standard. The standard itself is not anargument with post-fiat impacts.

Here is a common example of this mistake:

Affirmative:   

Utilitarianism is the best moraltheory for evaluating government action. The United States should implement auniversal healthcare system because doing so would save 50,000 lives everyyear, which is a huge advantage according to utilitarianism.

Negative:

Utilitarianism justifies genocide,which would kill way more than 50,000 people, so the disadvantages to affirmingoutweigh the advantages.

The Negative debater has made the mistake ofassuming that the agent (the United States) must adopt the standard, when infact the Affirmative has only argued that it should adopt the advocacy. Theargument that Utilitarianism justifies genocide might be a reason to reject itin favor of another standard for evaluating the impacts, but it does notgenerate any post-fiat impacts.

3.Debaters advancing a probabilistic claim are not exercising the power of fiat.

The only thing that is fiated (assumed) in adebate round is that a debater’s advocacy will happen. The impacts of that advocacy are notassumed. They are probabilistic claims – claims about what is likely to happen as a result of theadvocacy. For that reason they can be contested. You can’t say that an advocacy is unlikely to pass Congress,but you can say that the impacts youropponent predicts are in fact unlikely to happen.

Affirmative:

Utilitarianism is the best moraltheory for evaluating government action. The United States should implement auniversal healthcare system because doing so would save 50,000 lives everyyear, which is a huge advantage according to utilitarianism.

Negative:

My opponent fiats that 50,000 liveswill be saved, which is abusive because we don’t know for sure that this isgoing to happen.

Here the negative has confused the Affirmativeadvocacy with Affirmative impacts. The Affirmative argues that itis probable that 50,000 lives will be saved, but he does not assume it withoutargument. The Negative may argue that it is untrue that 50,000 lives will besaved, but the Affirmative has not engaged in any kind of abusive fiat.

So, remember when you are thinking throughissues of fiat to distinguish the advocacy, the standard, and the impacts of aposition. Doing so will save you big headaches down the road.

Competition Theory In LD

Lets start with a baseline- critiques and counterplans are arguments that originated in policy debate. As such, if you deploy a policy argument in LD it logically makes sense that you are bound to debate that issue by the parameters established in policy debate. If you want to make your own new argument form that is fine and dandy, don't label it a policy name then. As such, this discussion will proceed by pointing out some errors commonly made by LDers this year when reading and responding to policy style arguments in LD.1. A counterplan- a counterplan can traditionally compete in one of two waysA. Mutual exclusivity- this means the CP and the plan cannot occur at the same time- day/night for example. You can't build missile defense and not build missile defense. Similarly you can't grant and not grant protections at the same time.B. Net benefits- this means it is , from a util perspective, better to do the CP alone. The two actions are not mutually exclusive, but doing them together links to a net benefit disad and thus is not the best available idea.

In most cases the international court CP does not meet either of these standards of competition. It sets up a separate process, and the net benefit is that process is good. Affirmatives that authorize the use of article 3 courts do not FORCE anyone to go to an article 3 court. It is an option they can waive or accept. As an analogy lets look at federal and state law. The federal government has in some cases the option to prosecute a criminal at the federal level, if they chose to do this the states have no real recourse. The federal and state judicial systems are not mutually exclusive inherently, the federal government must exercise an option. Similarly, US and international courts are not mutually exclusive unless the US refuses to use international courts. There is nothing inherent in the resolution that means the aff has to defend this refusal. This can easily be illustrated by imagining what the world would be like if both courts existed. When a terror suspect was arrested someone in the US would have to decide where to send them. The existence of due process protections does not MANDATE article 3, it just means we can't try them in the US without article 3.

The international court does not comepete via net benefits because the offense is not a disad to the plan, it is a net benefit to the CP. Think of it this way, we are arguing about where to eat dinner. I say we should go to taco bell and you say we should go to burger king. If you say the following "Taco bell uses dog food, eating it will make you sick" that is a disadvantage- eating at taco bell causes something bad. Since any permutation would include eating at taco bell it would always link to this disad. If you said "only burger king has milkshakes" that is a net benefit to burger king- it is a reason going there is good, not a reason the plan is bad. So a permutation that said "lets go to taco bell AND burger king" would prove that the Burger King CP didnt compete because you get still get a milkshake. You need the disad- sickness- to make that cp competitive via net benefits.

Most arguments for the international court are reasons the court is god- includes voices, is more legit etc. These are not disads to the plan, and thus do not prove the CP is competitive. A disad like elections WOULD make the international court CP competitive because it links to the creation of due process protections not to actually trying them in the US.

A good way to explain this on the affirmative would be to say due process protections are LIMITS on state action- they say what the USFG can and can't do. So due process says "can't use military commission" not "Must use article 3".

2. Kritiks- People make a lot of weird permutations vs critiques. There are basically 2 ways we can categorize critiques for this discussion- ones that link to the aff "action" (the plan or the resolutional action, in this case granting protections) and critiques that link to the affs "representations"- the words and metaphors you use to explain why you should vote aff. Critiques of the plan operate much like counterplans- The USFG is bad, so lets have anarchy. You can evaluate that using the same criteria explained above. Critiques that don't link to the plan (or don't exclusively link to the plan) become dicier. Take terror talk. Many affs read a soft power advantage that says giving rights helps fight the war on terror. In response to the terror talk K they make arguments like " permute, do the plan and criticize terror discourse". But the critique doesn't compete with the plan by design- so using the plan in a permutation this way doesn't make very much sense. So against these critiques the permutation needs to explain why employing multiple forms of representations is desireable. Lets take a simple example, the climate change K.

The AC says, we should do X to avoid global warming which causes extinctionThe NC Says "using apocalyptic climate rhetoric causes nihilism/passivity which makes environmental problems worse"

The neg isn't saying "dont do X" they are saying "don't talk about climate that way"

A permutation would need to explain why talking about climate BOTH as an apocalyptic scenario and whatever the neg encourages (perhaps a sustainability framing)together would be desirable.

Three Things You Can Do To Improve Your Theory Debating

For better or for worse, competence in progressive LD requires some measure of proficiency at theory debate. Below are three things you can do to bolster your skill set in this area.

1. Deploy theory judiciously.

One of the most common strategy errors I see from debaters is overestimating the strategic value of introducing a theory debate. While layering is advantageous as a general principle, not all layering strategies are created equal.

First, theory debate is notoriously unclear and difficult to resolve. This doesn’t have to be the case, but at the moment it is. That means that initiating a theory debate introduces a degree of randomness that is difficult to control, especially with a judge whose theory sensibilities are unfamiliar. More basically, theory debate is often executed via a lot of fast, analytical arguments that simply become difficult to follow.

Second, theory debate can unnecessarily level the playing field. By introducing a layer above the rest of the flow that both debaters can at least plausibly win on, a debater can often nullify her own layering strategy. If you feel like you can outclass your opponent on the substantive debate, don’t fall into the trap of thinking you can similarly dominate on theory. Because these debates are much harder to predict, you are making the arguments on which you are most vulnerable the most important in the round. Even if your opponent is “just asking for it,” sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

My advice is not that you abandon theory altogether, but rather that you realistically assess its strategic viability in comparison to other possible strategies you might adopt. Sometimes your judge or your opponent make theory the best bet, and sometimes you encounter a strategy that is sufficiently abusive that you have little choice. However, you should critically assess your judgment to initiate a theory debate, because debaters simply get it wrong a lot of the time.

2. Carefully construct interpretations and counter-interpretations.

More theory debates than you expect are resolved by someone’s failure to think carefully about how to word his interpretation, and frankly a lot of poorly worded interpretations are given a free pass.

Your interp in theory debate is no different than your advocacy on the substantive debate – it is the position from which all link and impact chains must ultimately derive. Stunningly often debaters will claim an advantage in the theory standards that their interpretation cannot plausibly justify. Furthermore, overly broad and imprecise interpretations create much more substantial link-turn ground. As you would expect, creating a sweeping rule for debate is generally going to produce more disadvantages than a narrowly tailored rule.

Moreover, it is often the case that debaters will run interpretations which their opponents simply meet. That happens either because the would-be violator has nuanced her position so as to avoid this particular theory objection, or because debaters are so anxious to find a theory violation that they try to jury-rig a pre-written shell into a round where it is simply inapposite.

Two concrete takeaways: First, make sure you always write down your theory interpretations and insist that opponents do the same. Absent this concrete articulation of the rule you propose, the theory debate can quickly get out of hand. Second, construct interpretations as narrowly and precisely as possible. Doing a better job of tailoring your position to the particular situation will pay dividends on the theory standards debate.

3. Emphasize quality over quantity.

I feel like a broken record on this point, but it is especially important in the theory debate. Because most of your theory arguments are analytical, it is easy to get very blippy. Without meaningful argument development, it is exceptionally difficult to assess the strength of any individual link on the theory flow, let alone sort out the relevant weight of each argument in relation to all the others.

So, deploy your best case-debating skills here. Winning the theory flow is no different in principle than winning the substantive flow. Start with strong, well developed links to the voters. Isolate the most plausible links on the theory flow and try to control them. Articulate well-developed argument comparison so that you don’t have to count on the judge to “reconstruct” the theory debate when the round is over. These may sound like fundamentals, but they are often neglected by even very experienced debaters.

Happy hunting!

Three Things You Can Do To Improve Your 1ARs

Over the years, VBI instructors have found a variety of ways to express the most important lesson a debater can learn about the 1AR. Neil Conrad says “DON’T BE A VICTIM.” Ben Holguin and David McNeil say “The 1AR is NOT THAT BAD!” The takeaway is simple – most debaters underperform in the 1AR because their mindset is all wrong. The following advice is designed to help you make the 1AR the knock-out blow in your Aff rounds rather than simply jumping in at top speed and holding on for dear life until it’s over.

1. Identify the crux of the debate right away.

You don’t want the judge to have to “resolve” many layers before they get to a reason to vote for you. Instead of making your strategy about many disparate layers, make it about layered argumentation around one key issue that is the core tension in the round. On the current topic, perhaps the core tension is whether we should adopt a criminal justice paradigm or a military paradigm as the basis of U.S. counterterrorism strategy. Perhaps it is whether the community is a legitimate boundary for our moral obligations. The point is to frame the round in terms of resolving one question rather than many.

This combats the tendency of many negative debaters to throw everything against the wall to see what sticks. A lot that goes under the name “layering” is really about generating arbitrary prioritization that can be swept away by an effective framing of affirmative and negative burdens. This is particularly true of blippy “burdens” arguments against the framework that are falsely framed as ‘preconditions’ for making a policy choice. “You have to show that the state is a moral agent before you can say that it ‘ought’ to do anything.” No you don’t. I should feel quite comfortable determining that the state should or shouldn’t extend equal due process rights to non-citizens while being entirely uncertain where it falls on some phantom spectrum of agency, along with a lot of other presuppositions that are thoroughly beside the point.

2. Generate Offense

I sometimes think that debaters are put in the wrong frame of mind simply by using the word “cover.” To say that you have to cover in the 1AR suggests that your mission is simply to “get to” everything and somehow put ink on the flow. This is poor thinking both in terms of strategy and your attitude. You don’t need to just find time for the negative case. You can’t wait to get to the negative case because you can thoroughly destroy it and give the judge yet another reason to vote for you.

To have that mindset, you have to generate offense. Don’t just “get to” the NC to tick off the box, think of it as a layer you are determined to make a clear winner for you. This is particularly important against Negs that are overly defensive against the AC, because their strategy really hinges on your inability to cover and the judge defaulting to the NC. So, prepare a good, layered turn strategy to core negative positions. It is essential for making your 1AR the nail in the coffin for the Neg.

3. Make every extension meaningful through argument interaction and multifunctionality.

Multifunctionality in the AC is your best friend in the 1AR. With proper planning, you can make just about every argument you want to extend meaningfully interact with negative positions and other layers of argumentation. This dramatically improves your efficiency because every argument is doing so much more work for you. It also changes the tenor of your rebuttal because you aren’t scrambling to cover – you’re dealing out layers of positional preclusion or drop dead link and impact comparison every 10 or 15 seconds.

For this reason I think that almost all 1ARs should start by extending the AC. Not only do you avoid the common error of running out of time to extend offense, but you also take control of the lexical ordering of issues in the round. This takes planning and you may have to vary your strategy based on the circumstances, but I think this should generally be your first instinct in the 1AR.

Take no prisoners! Damn the torpedoes! Send the 2NR reeling!

Three Things You Can Do to Clean Up Messy Rounds

Many factors can cause rounds to devolve into the dreaded “messy debate,” including unclear speaking, excessive speed, purposeful obfuscation by one or both debaters, and complicated or overly abstract argumentation. Whatever the cause, it is in your interest to clean up the mess. Relying on the judge to sort out the melee in your favor is a recipe for disappointment, or at least inconsistency. Here are some things you can do to help clean up messy rounds.

1. Clarify the advocacies.

One of the most important things you can do to clear up the round is to make sure that both your advocacy and your opponent’s advocacy are clear. Debate arguments are almost always normative – they tell us what choices we should make or what policies we should adopt. Narrowing the round to a choice between two competing courses of action clarifies the round in a number of ways.

First, it helps focus the judge’s attention on the crux of the debate. All arguments can be organized around a simple choice of competing advocacies, which should help the judge avoid a complicated reconstruction of myriad unclear layers of analysis.

Second, it helps you frame your arguments about the relative importance of different issues. Rather than dwelling in the abstract, you can say concretely what impacts are unique, what impacts are likely, indicate how precisely it is that you are generating the links into your impacts, etc. For example, a stunning number of negative cases are really just non-unique disadvantages. A bad impact might happen in the Aff world, but the status quo doesn’t solve the problem either. If you have clarified what your opponent is advocating (e.g. the status quo), identifying this type of problem is easy. If not, they are allowed to pontificate about big impacts that might ultimately be irrelevant to choosing a course of action.

Finally, knowing your own advocacy is critical to engaging in meaningful case debate. It is very difficult to think through the way link stories might interact if the top of the link chain – what it is you’re going to do – isn’t very clear. Even if your position is heavily philosophical, it is still important to have a clear sense of your advocacy as a sort of tent peg to reality. Can you control a critical link in your opponent’s disad? Is a counterplan actually competitive? To discern these things quickly and easily, you need to know what it is you propose to do.

2. Organize your strategy around the biggest impact.

When debaters are speaking at top speed and the ink is flowing like the Mighty Mississippi come springtime, it is hard to parse the most important issues from the minutia. One way to effectively narrow the debate is to focus on the most important impact in the round. That can be a whole host of things – e.g. on this topic you’ll see impacts about the rights of detainees, preventing terrorist attacks, checking executive power, etc. Whatever it is, you can usually tell the judge that whoever wins the strongest link to that impact wins the round. So, focus on how it is that you are winning that argument. Does terrorist backlash cause more violence than extreme interrogation practices prevents? Do detainees get a fairer trial in a military commission or an Article III court? Is balance of powers threatened more by weakening the judiciary’s ability to protect individual rights or by undermining the democratic authority of congress? When you can crystallize to these types of practical questions, messy rounds can clear up quickly.

3. Slow down.

It is an iron law of debate that you are clearer when you are speaking at a moderate pace than when you are going at breakneck speed. This does not mean that you have to go SUPER slow – some people actually do lose some clarity at that pace – but it does mean that if you want to be absolutely sure that the judge knows what you’re talking about, you’ve got to back off of your top speed. That may be counter-intuitive in a messy round because there are often lots of issues to deal with, but if you are serious about clarity you must commit to a slower speaking speed. This will require you to employ better issue selection and word economy, but that will also help to clean up the round. At the end of the day, going for two clear layers is better than four unclear layers, so the reduced speed is worth the tradeoff.

When the round is messy and you forgo the opportunity to clear it up, you’ll have an unhappy judge and an unreliable decision. Take control of your own fate and commit to clearing up messy rounds.

What's in Your Debate Bag?

Backpack, Backpack: What’s in Your Debate Bag?By: Kyle Allen-Niesen & Cory Wynn

EDIT: An updated version of this article can be found here.With the start of the new year, it's important that we talk about some of the tips and know-how that we commonly take for granted. Most of you already know that having all the necessities in your backpack at a tournament is an important part of success. Showing up to a tournament without even just one of them is an instant confidence-sapper. Leaving key components of the debate backpack at home is the real-life version of the nightmare where you show up to school having forgotten to get dressed; it leaves you feeling naked. What those necessities actually consist of, on the other hand, is a difficult question.  We couldn’t exactly decide on what should be in the perfect debate backpack, so instead we’re opening up our own backpacks and letting you know exactly what keeps us going weekend after weekend.BackpackWhile bigger might not always be better (we see you, Ryan Lawrence), it definitely is when it comes to backpacks.  We always made sure that there was ample space for everything we needed, including a laptop and multiple  expandos.  Organizational availability should also be a key criterion when sorting through your local office supply emporium. When you don’t have a backpack with a bunch of pockets, you misplace your pens.  When you misplace your pens, you can’t find another one when your pen runs out of ink.  When you can’t find a pen, you miss your opponents speech. When you miss your opponents speech you drop a turn.  When you drop a turn, you lose your round.  When you lose your round, you lose self-confidence and end up with the wrong crowd.  Next thing you know, you have a new tattoo across your back and piercings in weird places on your face.  Don’t get tattoos or strange facial piercings; Buy a good backpack. Signed, DirecTV.LaptopCory (15”): In my opinion, nothing is more important than a solid laptop; you can read cases and blocks, write new files, and browse the interwebs in your freetime, all on the same device.  I personally loved using my MacBook Pro 15” because I am definitely a Mac guy, but also because having 15 inches is the perfect amount of space to work with, just enough for two split windows for cutting cards or one large reading space for reading evidence in round. It’s been over three years since I bought it and its still running strong. (Kyle’s computer isn’t in that great of shape, although its still running, which says a lot considering how many times I’ve seen it smashing into the floor). Moral of the story though is pick something durable that you feel comfortable using a lot.Kyle (13”): 13 inch all the way! I’m currently writing on Cory’s laptop, and let me tell you, it feels like a ton of bricks. My feet might be turning blue from lack of blood circulation.  The 13 inch, on the other hand, is so light that I don’t even know that it’s there (hence, the number of times that Cory has seen my laptop crash onto the ground).  The 13 inch is small enough that you can comfortably adjust the screen on a tray-table in coach, but is big enough to do all of the in-round things that Cory talked about.  And, its durable enough that it can get a few bruises and keep going.  Seriously though, get something strong.  The thought of a laptop crashing during a speech was one of my worst debate nightmares. (Ed. Note: Keep in mind that Kyle hardly ever did any debate work...)Surge ProtectorsIf sitting in crowded airports, cafeterias and hotel rooms has taught me anything, it’s that you can never have enough outlets.  From your cellphone, to your laptop, to your iPad and travel printer, having a good surge protector is critical to ensuring that you always enough outlets for all your electronic devices. As for our personal choice, we recommend the Belkin Mini Surge Protector. This small device spits one three-prong outlet into three; and, as an added bonus, there are also two USB slots, perfect for charging iPhones or other devices with USB chargers. You can pick up your own Belkin Mini Surge Protector for as little as $10 on Amazon.Flash-Drive“Thus, I affirm and now stand open for cross-examination.”“Can you flash me the case?”“Yeah. Do you have a flash drive?”“No. Don’t you have a flash drive?”“Nope.”“Then, can I use your computer for prep?”“Well, I kind of want to use my computer during prep, so no.”“...”Bring a Flash Drive. (It’s also a great way to share music with your debate friends!)Phone ChargerIt’s not exactly the most enlightening discovery, but bringing a phone charger is a must. I won’t lie; it wasn’t often that both of us would remember to bring our phone chargers. But, I can promise you that when we did neglect to bring them, we definitely didn’t forget it. Bringing a phone without a charger is pretty much equivalent to not bringing the thing at all. An easy way to remember to bring a charger is just by stashing an extra USB charger in your debate bag.  Not only will you always be able to charge it through your laptop, but also, if you have a Belkin Mini Surge Protector, you can charge your phone almost anywhere without monopolizing the entire outlet.Pilot G2s (0.5mm or 0.38mm)I didn’t believe my elders when they told me that they had stumbled upon the world’s greatest pen; so, of course, I had to do my own soul searching. I went through the Pilot V5s, Uni-balls, and even some R.S.V.P.s, but none could match the smooth, extra-fine writing experience that I so desired. With humility and submissiveness, I asked to borrow my team captain’s pen, and it was that exact moment when I fell in love with the G2. No pen writes easier with as fine of a tip, seriously. And, as a plus for all you debate kids, G2s come in a variety of colors so you can ask your opponent what color they want to be on your flow and give them more of a choice than between red and black.CardstockFrom the second you see your opponent pull out cardstock rather than your average, run of the mill paper, you know that the round isn’t going to be a walk in the park.  It might sound like a lot to say that just because someone has a thicker type of paper that they are automatically a better debater, but let me be honest, it’s often the case. When it comes to cardstock, I typically believe that the thicker, the better.  I am a strong advocate for having paper that doesn’t flop over when you stand up to give your speech.TimerWhen it comes to timers, having a timer with 0-9 buttons is a must; nobody wants to hear you you press the seconds button 25 times to set your prep-time.  And when it comes to 0-9 timers, all the cool kids use Radioshack ones.  But being a cool kid certainly has problems.  For one, everyone’s timer looks exactly the same.  Make sure to personalize your timer, otherwise you might end up publicly accusing your teammate of stealing yours! (Greenhill 2009 was the low point in Cory and Kyle’s friendship, partly stemming from a dispute about a timer... and Kyle’s insanity).ExpandoExpandos are one of those threshold items that signify your status as a threat.  Think about it. How many rounds have you looked at your opponent, noticed that they stapled their case, or double spaced the pages, or use a pink folder and known that this wouldn’t be a tough round? Don’t be That Kid.  There are still so many questions though! Cover flap, no cover flap, legal, letter, 12 pockets, 31 pockets, plastic, that cardboard material... how do you decide? In my experience, I always liked having a flapless expando.  Papers would naturally stay in place, and having an easy ability to take out and put back papers is always a plus. Also, make sure to get the letter-size 31 pocket expando (if you buy the legal one, good luck getting it in your backpack!).  That way, you have enough pockets for all your files, but it’s small enough to fit comfortably within the backpack. As for plastic vs. cardboard, just follow your heart.  When you follow your heart, nothing can go wrong.  (Cory always brought one, Kyle brought 2).Headphone SplitterHaving the essential debate backpack is about more than only having things for in-round.  As anyone who has ever been at a debate tournament knows, having things to do in-between rounds is half of the battle; that’s where having a headphone splitter comes in handy.  Being able to share your music, or listen to other’s music makes tournaments all the more bearable.  Nothing’s better after a long few rounds than watching a movie (and actually hearing it) in the hallway between rounds.HeadphonesThe great Waldo 2.0, who is so good that nobody can find him (a.k.a Wes Craven) always said that music was a key part of the vaunted “perceptual dominance”.  Being stuck without it is an instant downer, condemning you to the pandemonious frenzy of the cafeteria, or the tense silence of sitting outside the room with your rival.  So make sure that headphones are always present in the backpack. They guarantee that you will never be without a lyrical sanctuary, and also are another way to be a little unique. Plus, breaking out some crazy-colored ‘phones will give you a little bit of that unique swagger that every great debater has! But remember, just because you have headphones doesn’t mean you need to wear them around like a necklace all day... We get it; you think you look awesome in your Beats. You don’t.PrinterNow, obviously not every single kid on the team needs a printer; but I found it extremely helpful when as a team we had at least one.  Having a portable printer is critical to being able to write new files at tournaments and have them ready to go on paper later that day. While it’s becoming more and more acceptable to read off a laptop, reading off paper, in my experience, makes people way clearer, faster, and more professional looking.  Also, remember, just because you have a portable printer, it doesn’t make you look cool when ya noisily print off files during round. It makes you look like a deleted scene from Office Space.Flying with a printer can be a pain if it isn’t easy to immediately set up and take down,  so make sure it’s easily accessible. If you don’t feel like dragging it along, make the younger kids bring it! (That’s what teammates are for, amiright?)And Finally, Snacks!Making sure that you have your favorite snack is super important, because the average quality of food usually available at debate tournaments ranges from “Airplane  to “Hospital”.  Everyone has a different favorite morsel, so bring what you love.  Kyle loved “10th Tee Energy Bars” (I guess nobody told him that he brought them to the wrong activity), whereas Cory loved whatever his mom packed him for that day and whatever Kyle was eating... You also might want to think about bringing some healthy snacks.  One of the hardest part of debate tournaments is eating healthy.  Bringing along snacks like almonds, dried fruit, and things like granola bars can really help the days pass a lot smoother. While it doesn’t really matter what snacks makes it into your bag, the real key is not to be caught without them.So, that's what kept us going at tournaments. All in all though, the final lesson is this: make your debate-pack awesome and make it unique.  Bring the best of everything, but make it your own.Let us know what you consider necessities or, even better, let us know what’s in your debate-pack! If you already have these products and agree that they are must-haves or if you disagree and think these products are lame, share it in the comments below!