The Case for “Sample Ballots” for NSDA Nationals

Lawrence Zhou was the 2014 NSDA National Champion in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. He is now an assistant coach at Apple Valley High School and the Director of Publishing at the Victory Briefs Institute.

The Opinions Expressed In This Post Are Those of the Author And Not Necessarily Those Of Victory Briefs.

---

I briefly argued in my recent Miscellaneous Musings post that one potential way to improve the quality of both judge training and student information at NSDA Nationals would be to have judges complete a sample ballot of a debate round that would be publicly viewable by students prior to and during the tournament.

Here, I intend to sketch out both what this model could look like and why I believe this would be a valuable tool to incorporate into the judging training process for NSDA Nationals (and other tournaments). Unlike my previous posts, I aim to keep this post quite short and readable because I truly believe that this model, while initially unintuitive, is ultimately uncontroversial once the arguments for and against are considered.

While my proposal stems largely from my criticisms of inexperienced judging that I have laid out in previous posts, I do not believe that one needs to accept any of the underlying criticisms of judging at NSDA Nationals to find value in this model. I believe that the benefits of incorporating a sample ballot into the LD Paradigm stand on their own regardless of where one lands on the value of different judging styles.

Finally, while I am writing in the context of Lincoln-Douglas debate, there is no reason such a model couldn’t be applied to any other debate event such as policy, public forum, or even Big Questions. Additionally, this could be a model adopted more widely for other tournaments as both a tool for judge training and for judge paradigms.

The Model and Its Benefits

My proposal of “sample ballots” could work in a variety of ways. I will propose one possible way this could be adopted, but this approach is largely flexible and adaptable. What matters is that the core idea of having a publicly viewable sample ballot remains.

The basic idea is that prior to the NSDA National Tournament, judges would watch a final round of Lincoln-Douglas debate (or any other debate event) and submit a sample ballot as if they were a judge. My proposed round is the 2018 final round between Ishan Bhatt and Jackson DeConcini on the topic, “Resolved: The United States’ use of targeted killing is unjust,” as I found the round to be an excellent example of many core Lincoln-Douglas skills and concepts. 

The key point is that students should also be able to view the same round as the judges so that they can see how their assessment of the round aligns or differs with the judge’s assessment of the round. 

Judges would roleplay as a judge, interacting with a Tabroom.com page identical to the one that they would get while judging. This would require having the judge click the “Start Round” button, selecting a winner, assigning speaker points, and filling out a ballot (and comment section) as if they were adjudicating a real round. 

My proposal would involve submitting a decision with a minimum word count (say 200 words) and offering three (3) comments to each debater using a ballot that resembles the actual ballots judges would submit at Nationals. Those ballots could then be attached to a publicly viewable page linked to a particular judge. For example, one button on the existing LD Paradigm Page could link to this publicly viewable ballot.

After the judge submits their ballot, they would then be able to view select ballots from other judges. These could either be the real ballots from actual judges on the final round panel or they could be ballots solicited from experienced coaches and judges from a variety of backgrounds. This would allow judges to compare their ballots to ones from more experienced judges.

I argue there are two buckets of benefits to such a model: benefits to judges and benefits to competitors.

Benefits to Judges

I believe that judges would benefit in two ways from this model.

First, it provides an opportunity to get familiar with the logistical details of submitting a ballot. By having the judge roleplay a judge, they would become more familiar with the process of judging on Tabroom.com. Judges would have to click “Start Round,” submit a winner and speaker points, and fill out the ballot just as they would have to when the tournament started. Based on my (limited) experience with running the NSDA Debate Judge Training (materials available here), many judges are still unfamiliar with how Tabroom.com works and this would provide an opportunity to translate theory into practice.

Second, it allows judges to receive feedback on their judging. Being able to compare their recently completed ballots to ballots from more experienced judges, new judges can see what some of the differences in both the substance and style of comments among various experienced judges might look like. This benefit is also quite scalable as various ballots submitted through the training process can be incorporated into a training bank over time to include a wider variety of perspectives. 

Benefits to Competitors

I believe that this would give competitors access to a much richer and meaningful paradigm. As I’ve previously argued in my 2021 version of my Miscellaneous Musings, judge paradigms often don’t provide meaningful information to competitors. This appears to be a widely held view amongst competitors and coaches from all walks of life. Right now, the paradigm simply doesn’t help debaters understand how to persuade their audiences. However, this proposal to adopt sample ballots would give a much more detailed and holistic view about how judges actually judge. Debaters can actually see the judging process and understand what the judge is looking for. 

Potential Objections

While I view my proposal as positively modest, there are potential objections to this proposal that I will attempt to address here.

First, and most obviously, is the additional time investment this would require for judges. While this would require an extra hour or so of additional time for a judge prior to attending NSDA Nationals, I view this as an acceptable time investment, especially given the extended time scale and importance of NSDA Nationals.

Second, this seems unnecessary for judges with lots of experience judging rounds. I could see there being a case for being able to opt-out of this requirement. For example, any judge who marks that they have judged over a certain number of rounds this season could be exempt from having to complete this. However, I would still think that it is beneficial for all judges, regardless of experience level, to submit this ballot because of the important information it provides to competitors and judges. 

Third, this seems like it might provide too much information for students, potentially undermining the value of judge adaptation. Without diving into the more fundamental debate of what the value of judge adaptation is, I view this response largely as a nonstarter. Not only does this ignore that students already have access to a bevy of information about the judge via the required LD Paradigm, any additional information that the judge may choose to submit to their Tabroom.com paradigm, and any direct or indirect experience with the judge from the past, but this also overlooks the myriad of benefits this affords to judges themselves.

Other objections are also unpersuasive to me. This would not be any more complex for judges to figure out and, if anything, reduces complexity during the tournament by giving judges a less stressful environment to practice judging. This would also be quite feasible from a technical standpoint, requiring nothing more than an extra page associated with a judge’s NSDA LD Paradigm.

Conclusion

I think this modest proposal would only impose a very mild cost on judges prior to the tournament while returning benefits to judges and competitors far beyond the initial time investment. If adopted, I believe this “Sample Ballot” proposal would greatly decrease the number of totally inexperienced judges in the pool and help students better understand the judging style and preferences of their audience.

Miscellaneous Musings – NSDA Nationals 2022 Edition

Lawrence Zhou was the 2014 NSDA National Champion in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. He is now an assistant coach at Apple Valley High School and the Director of Publishing at the Victory Briefs Institute.

The Opinions Expressed In This Post Are Those of the Author And Not Necessarily Those Of Victory Briefs.

---

Introduction

When Scott Wunn, the executive director of the NSDA, asked all the graduating seniors to stand at the conclusion of the final awards ceremony, he expressed his deep appreciation for the gravity of the moment—the ability to speak in-person to all the students he had not had the opportunity to see for years except through the mediated experience of a Zoom screen. 

Despite the pure and utter exhaustion I feel at the conclusion of this grueling, week-long tournament, I share Wunn’s sentiment. For all of the annoyances, inconveniences, and drawbacks of in-person tournaments (of which there are many), the experience of judges being able to adjudicate a debate round where the debaters weren’t digitally invading their homes, debaters to form new friendships that didn’t involve merely exchanging Discord or Instagram contact information, and coaches to be able to celebrate success amongst community members that shared in their accomplishments surely outweighed those concerns.

While this in-person NSDA Nationals felt more like a return to normal for many judges and coaches, for many competitors, this was an aberration, the tournament that did not fit with their past experiences of debate. I originally didn’t feel a strong desire to pen this piece because many of complaints and thoughts I’ve vocalized concerning previous NSDA National Tournaments remain the same—predictably, I will continue in the legacy of my 2021, 2020, and 2018 editions and offer some (constructive) criticism about judging and topic selection. However, the in-person element of this year’s NSDA Nationals perhaps warrants some additional analysis about how we can try and improve the quality of the debating and judging at the world’s largest academic competition. 

1. Congratulations!

First, congratulations to Hannah Pierre from Edina High School for winning NSDA Nationals in Lincoln-Douglas debate and congratulations to Easton Logback from Olathe East High School for finishing as the national runner-up! While I was unable to watch the debate live (as I was sequestered away judging the finals of Big Questions debate), I’m sure it was an excellent round on a difficult topic. 

Second, congratulations to everyone who competed and/or broke at this tournament. I believe this was one of the more difficult NSDA National Tournaments to break at in recent history (whether due to the NSDA’s introduction of powermatching, described on page 111 of the June 2, 2022 edition of the NSDA’s High School Unified Manual, or some other phenomenon is unknown to me). I only counted 62 debaters in Round 7 (although someone feel free to check my ability to count), whereas I tallied there being 264 debaters competing in Round 6, a break rate of about 23.5%. By comparison, last year had a field of 368 debaters, with 113 of them advancing to Round 7, a break rate of about 30.7%. A difference of 7% of the field is quite noticeable and something worth looking into further. 

Third, congratulations to Minnesota, who had three debaters in the top eight of NSDA Nationals, including my student Alharith Dameh from Apple Valley High School. While I won’t be around for Minnesota locals next year, I can tell it will be highly competitive next season! 

Fourth, congratulations to Oklahoma, particularly Tuqa Alibadi and Leon Shepkaru from Norman North High School who both placed in the top 14 in LD! I always love seeing Oklahoma debaters in late elimination rounds of this tournament! 

Fifth, congratulations to all the graduating seniors! Even if your tournament didn’t end the way you wanted it to, I hope that the experience of attending NSDA Nationals in-person helped make up for it. And, as I mentioned in last year’s post, please consider giving back to debate in some form or fashion next season to help make debate a more welcoming and educational environment for those who are still competing. 

Now that I’ve said the nice things, time to rant about the no-so-nice things about this tournament. 

2. The Topic Sucked

As I so passionately ranted about in my polemic that I termed a topic analysis (and subsequently elaborated on in an episode for the One Clap Speech and Debate podcast), I strongly felt that the NSDA Nationals LD topic (Resolved: Radicalism is preferable to incrementalism to achieve social justice) would end up being a poor topic lacking sufficient context to foster high-quality clash given the competitive incentives that dominate the activity. The rounds I witnessed did not dispel those concerns. 

I won’t reinvent the wheel here—my complaints about the lack of an actor, political context, definitional precision, and consensus on what it meant to “achieve” social justice remain the same. As Chris Theis, Jacob Nails, and I have discussed repeatedly on previous episodes of The Next Off Podcast, good topics ought to clearly specify a context and actor to foster high-quality debate.

However, my complaints about the topic stretch far beyond the fact that I found the topic to be aesthetically displeasing. I think that the ambiguity of the topic meaningfully impacted the ability of judges to properly evaluate the debate, which both made judging this topic quite difficult and also likely resulted in situations where debaters who were attempting to engage the topic in good faith lost debates to cheesy or silly tricks.

For example, take the concern about whether the government will pass radical proposals. Recall the topic does not specify an actor. In one interpretation of the topic where the government is the actor, then this concern is wholly irrelevant. After all, if the government is the one passing the policy, then it ought to regardless of whether or not it will—to claim otherwise is to succumb to the is-ought fallacy. However, if one adopts an interpretation of the topic where we adopt the perspective of activist groups who are attempting to influence the government, then the concern about whether the government will pass said radical proposals becomes far more salient—whether governments will be responsive to the demands of activist groups is one of the primary concerns shaping the strategy, tactics, and messaging of activist groups.

This ambiguity played out in various ways throughout the tournament. In just one example, I heard a debater forward the argument that radicalism meant working outside the system, clearly implying that what mattered was an approach to justice that did not engage with political institutions, while incrementalism meant working inside the system, clearly implying that what mattered was an approach to justice that had political institutions pass policies. There are a few issues with this argument.

Not only was the latter definition pretty inconsistent with what the literature broadly referred to as “incrementalism,” but it was also an incoherent interpretation of the topic because it could obviously be the case that both are true. Perhaps activist groups should engage in social movements that eschew engagement with the state, but perhaps legislative bodies should enact laws that make meaningful—if small—differences in people’s everyday lives. It is simply not an opportunity cost for one group of people to engage in one course of action and for another group to engage in a different course of action.

Additionally, this interpretation resulted in perverse incentives to collapse the debate down to meaningless and irresolvable debates about how to properly interpret the topic. For example, a lot of the negative’s arguments were about how supposedly “radical” proposals were actually incremental because they involved working within the system—consequently, the debate devolved into a disagreement not about the substantive considerations of whether certain proposals were desirable or not but into semantic disputes about which side got to claim credit for those proposals, hardly the type of debate that this topic aimed to foster. 

This is, of course, not meant to belittle any particular debater—rather, it is largely reflective of the fact that debaters were forced into adopting asinine interpretations of the topic because the topic failed to provide any reasonable basis for productive engagement. In a world in which topics were better worded, I suspect many of these concerns would be far less relevant. 

So, what is motivating the topic committee to adopt these topics?

Truthfully, I don’t know. I don’t have privileged insight into the motivations and thought processes of the various members of the topic wording committee. And even if I did, it’s unlikely such knowledge would even be comprehensible to me. However, I do suspect that at least some portion of the topic committee is rooted in a vision of debate that remains idealistic and detached from the reality of how topics play out in an actual debate round where debaters simply do not conform to the expectations of prior periods of debate. 

I’ve hypothesized on previous episodes of The Next Off Podcast that a few things could be happening here. First, there is likely a fairly strong reactionary backlash against the increasing “policy-fication” of LD. I sympathize with such concerns, especially at NSDA Nationals, where the value of LD lies precisely in the fact that it is not reducible to one-on-one policy debate. However, the cure can often be worse than the disease. In an attempt to strip away any hint of the “policy” sludge from LD topics, they’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater and stripped it of everything that could foster meaningful, high-quality debate such as an actor or reasonable context. 

Second, I suspect there are strong desires to return back to the days of very principled LD topics that helped set LD apart from other debate events. There something noble about this, but I think it fails to appreciate that (A) what counts as an interesting and debatable topic shifts over time (recall that the original Lincoln-Douglas debates were about the morality of slavery, hardly worth debating nowadays), and that (B) even topics from those times were often debated somewhat poorly. For example, the 1997 NSDA (then NFL) Nationals topic was “Resolved: the public’s right to know is of greater value than the individual’s right to privacy.” In a fairly well viewed clip of the cross-examination between Marc Wallenstein of the Greenhill School and his opponent in the final round, many of the questions revolve around specific instances of when a right to know might trump a right to privacy. His opponent spent the vast majority of cross-examination just trying to dodge the questions and attempting to play silly definitional games to avoid the crux of the topic. But can you blame the opponent? The topic gives virtually no context—obviously the public has the right to know if an individual is planning on detonating a nuclear weapon, but the public has no right to know about an individual’s prior relationship history. That topic was one that sounded good in theory but ultimately could not (and did not) produce meaningful debates since the relevant debate was not about whether the right to know could ultimately trump the right to privacy in certain circumstances, but rather about (A) what those circumstances were, and (B) how we could know what those circumstances were. Similarly, this topic suffered from a similar problem—it’s hard to say that radicalism or incrementalism ought to generally be preferred above the other absent context. 

Regardless of the particulars, part of the problem lies with the topic submission process—topics do not spring from nowhere; they require community members to submit high-quality topics. The free-rider problem where schools benefit from debating the topics submitted but do not themselves submit topics is a serious concern. While we can collectively demand that the topic committee take into account the empirical evidence about the quality of topics, we can also collectively do better and submit higher quality topics to begin with.  

3. Judging

As I’ve expressed repeatedly before, the judging experience of many competitors is subpar to say the least. Ballots are often chalked full of errors, nonsensical comments, and advice that is patently absurd. While I am a very strong proponent of lay/traditional styles of debating, I think that many of the benefits derived from debating in front of a wide range of audiences become lost when judging at the upper echelons of competition create perverse incentives to debate in a way that is ultimately antithetical to the values and skills we are attempting to inculcate. 

I start by acknowledging that it is not easy to fulfill the judging requirements at NSDA Nationals. The opportunity cost is substantial—a whole week in a different location is a hefty cost to pay for college students (who might have internships, jobs, or vacation plans) and adults (who are similarly bogged down with work or family obligations) alike. Consequently, it is very difficult for many schools, especially under-resourced schools, to find any person willing to exchange a week of their life where they are yelled at by high schools in exchange for limited compensation, let alone a qualified judge who is likely stretched thin with prior commitments. Some of the proposals I sketch out below potentially amplify these existing disparities, but I have tried to limit my suggestions to those that would be minimally disruptive and would not exacerbate judging and resource disparities. 

Obviously, those decision-makers with the power to effectuate these changes are unlikely to read my verbose rants here, so I am likely merely preaching to the choir here. However, there are some changes that could easily be enacted without severely disrupting the tournament that you, as a student or coach, could potentially advocate and lobby for.

A Critique of (Exclusively) Inexperienced Judging

Before I jump into the rest of my proposals, it makes some sense to roughly sketch out the paradigmatic differences between those who believe in the value of primarily lay or inexperienced judging. It is important to note here that my critique is not directed at traditional debate in general—this has nothing to do with judges who prefer judging traditional debates—and is instead aimed at judges with limited or no prior judging experience. 

As I’ve argued previously in Current Affairs and as Becca Rothfeld so eloquently argues in a recent article in The Yale Review, debate’s value stems more from the skills that it inculcates than from any particular content knowledge (although I do largely subscribe to the view that content knowledge translates into meaningful skills). While debate has taught me much about a wide variety of subject areas that I otherwise would have never been exposed to, the main thing that debate has inculcated is a method for evaluating arguments in the real-world. 

Debate is often a horrible tool for teaching a direct appreciation for the truth—competitive incentives to win swamp nearly everything else. Rather, debate is useful for teaching skills that indirectly help us become more persuasive in the real-world—it teaches how to research, think critically, reflect on our own assumptions, and learn tools for becoming better advocates for important causes. 

These are the skills that debate, as an adversarial process, is supposed to incentivize. Better research, more critical thinking, and improved rhetoric should be the recipes for success, driven by a desire to win. However, those skills are hardly rewarded if topic research falls by the wayside because a judge with no familiarity with the topic or debate itself fails to reward these skills. Debates in front of judges with no prior judging experience will inevitably fail to properly incentivize these skills for a few reasons. As I wrote in last year’s edition of this, “I think that debate at higher level competitions like NSDA Nationals needs to reward deep research that can be translated to a wider audience. Right now, it feels as if the incentives of debaters is less to do lots of research in public health ethics, philosophy, or current events and instead to focus on making simple arguments that work in front of a wide range of audiences and to polish their presentation… I think that the lack of more experienced judges in rounds at NSDA Nationals deflates the value of doing deep and real academic research, especially into more abstract values questions like the one that the resolution is posing. If such research is not rewarded, then little incentive exists to do such research.” 

Additionally, I have argued that: 

“[I]t is a generally accepted fact that judges without some debate experience will tend to make decisions that correspond less with the actual arguments made in the round and often correspond with less obvious and predictable factors like random presentation quirks. The fact that the NSDA goes out of its way to put experienced coaches in late elimination rounds demonstrates this. If this is well recognized, then it seems odd that the tournament allows those without prior debate experience to adjudicate rounds that are representing the top debaters in the nation. It seems to devalue some of the work that debaters do. When debaters who do a lot of work and then lose because some judge couldn’t understand some norm of Lincoln-Douglas debate or because they simply incorrectly interpreted an argument, that does some disservice to debaters. Again, it is an important skill in life to recognize that you can’t persuade everyone and debaters need to learn how to persuade those without significant debate experience in the real world, and that’s why I think that local tournaments are so valuable for everyone. However, when we’re talking about the NSDA National Tournament, a tournament that sends so many seniors off into the real world as their last tournament, a tournament that represents the best of the best, we should ask better for our students.” 

Simply put, if you know that very few debates are going to be decided by a question of who has done the most work into gaining a deep understanding of the topic and instead on almost entirely irrelevant issues, why bother doing any preparation in the first place? This isn’t a mere theoretical concern—I can confidently say that many of the debaters who do well at NSDA Nationals will tell you themselves that they did not do a lot of work for the tournament. 

Of course, the standard reply is that the primary skill that (traditional) LD debate is supposed to engender revolves around the value of persuading diverse audiences. Oddly enough, debate is not the event that best engenders the type of persuasion that defenders of more “traditional” styles of debate often implicitly assume in their (usually misguided) critiques of the more technical forms of debate. Surely one can correctly identify that faster, technical debate—often termed “progressive” debate by both critics and defenders alike—has a high barrier to entry, is dominated by elite institutions, and presents tremendous opportunity costs while also recognizing that the skills that such a form of debate is supposed to produce are not those directly tethered to persuading people in the real world. Instead, what critics charge, debate is supposed to directly mirror the real-world, similar to an Intelligence Squared debate, forgetting that while debates in the real-world are motivated by (supposedly good faith) attempts to discover the truth while debates in high school are motivated by wins.

Yet several speech events already exist to foster precisely these types of persuasive skills, namely original oratory, informative speaking, and even extemporaneous speaking. In each of these events, participants are unmoored from the obligation to advance arguments that they do not personally agree with—they have the opportunity to choose an issue that they are personally attached to and have done copious amounts of research on before spending countless hours fine tuning how they will craft and sell their message to a skeptical or even hostile audience. In these events, the incentive to win is actually directly tethered to the truth value of the message one is advancing. If one were interested in learning the skill of how to persuade a wide range of audiences, we should be investing more energy in these other forensic events, not in LD debate. 

Again, this is not suggesting that traditional debate is bad—far from it! Rather, my point is that many of the benefits of traditional styles of debate are undermined when the national championship does not put in more experienced judges into the pool. It shouldn’t be the case that every student I’ve ever coached spends the time immediately following the tournament messaging me screenshots of some of the absurd ballots they receive over the course of the tournament—we should want students to feel like their voices are being heard. It’s just hard to do that when judges with no experience are the ones listening. 

To that end, I tentatively offer six proposals that could make some difference in the quality of judging at NSDA Nationals to better serve our students. 

A. Lift the Prohibition on First-Year Judges

First, I think the prohibition on first-year judges should be lifted. I have suggested this before, but I strongly feel that this prohibition is among the more damaging ones to the quality of the judging pool. I feel the case for allowing first-year judges is straightforward—first-year out judges tend to be the ones most familiar with debate and among the most motivated to judge.

Recall that there is a massive opportunity cost for judges attending NSDA Nationals. For many adults, a whole week is a large chunk of their limited vacation time; for many college students, it trades off with internships, jobs, or vacation time. Often, college students have found other time-consuming enterprises by the time they reach their second year of university, and thus it is more difficult to lure them away from either their prior commitments or their limited free time with the prospect of judging a debate tournament for limited (if any) compensation. Consequently, the pool of available judges is largely limited to current coaches, school chaperones, and parents of competitors who are willing and able to sacrifice a whole week of their summer.

However, first-year judges tend to both be more available—having yet to be preoccupied by other important career opportunities like internships—and more interested in judging—since many of them feel more attachment and excitement about debate which tends to wane over time—compared to many other judges. Without empirical data to substantiate my point, I can only speculate, but I would not be at all surprised if lifting such a prohibition would result in a decent sized influx of both available and motivated judges who tend to be more familiar with contemporary debate norms as well as the topic, resulting in higher quality judging.

There are a few potential responses that critics might levy against this change. First, critics might charge that many first-year judges will be inexperienced and biased judges. Not only is this already not a unique concern because of the large contingency of judges with zero prior debate experience, but first year outs tend to be more familiar with good debate practices compared to judges that are years removed from the activity.

Second, critics might argue that first-year judges will think too much like a debater and not enough like a judge. While I find this objection persuasive, I don’t think it scales up to suggest a prohibition on first-year judging is the correct answer. Perhaps requiring special training for first-year judges or requiring that first-year judges have judged a minimum number of rounds could help remove debaters from the “debater” mindset.

Third, critics might suggest that first-year judges have attachments to existing competitors that might affect their ability to be an objective judge. Given the size of the pool, I find this to be an extremely low-impact concern and there is always the ability to strike competitors.

To this day, I struggle to see why this prohibition exists. I acknowledge that many first-year judges are bad. That’s an obvious and indisputable fact. The relevant question isn’t whether first-year judges are bad—it’s whether they’re worse than judges that are filling the void, and given that I believe that there is some harm done to competitors when they are demotivated by low-quality decisions and poor feedback, I struggle to see how the evidence points in the direction that a first-year judge who is excited to give back to the community is somehow worse than a parent with no prior debate experience.

B. Pool Judges Differently

A less controversial suggestion could simply be a backend modification to the way that pooling works. Right now, judges seem to be more or less randomly assigned to complete days in the pool (although I’m not privy to the backend pooling process, so perhaps there is less randomness than I assume). For example, I was in the Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday pools where I was expected to be available to judge any round that day (even if many judges who were pooled never judged a round and were forced to sit in the judge pooling room all day with nothing to do). 

While the tournament does seem to try and pool more experienced judges for Thursday, that’s not very useful since there are often only two debates and less than 20 debaters remaining at that point in time. It should not be the case that judges with no prior judging record are judging elimination rounds where there are only 30 competitors left. It is deeply unsatisfying when a debater who has invested time and energy into this activity leaves the round (and tournament) feeling deeply demotivated because the final round of their season or even career was decided on something that was ultimately unimportant by a judge with limited or no prior experience. 

My suggestion is simple—any judge who marks that they have judged 0-10 rounds this season should be confined to the preliminary round pool while judges with more experience should be pooled for elimination rounds. 

Obviously, this is imperfect—the underlying problem is that there are still judges without experience in the pool. However, I feel that this is superior to the existing arrangement. Because the preliminary rounds merely require a debater to accumulate eight out of 12 ballots, it creates a decent-sized cushion for debaters who can afford to lose one-third of their ballots before being unable to advance. It is arguably better able to capture many of the “persuasion” benefits that many coaches desire because it forces debaters to be able to appeal to a broad range of judges in the earlier rounds. The upside is that later elimination rounds against the best of the best in the country are then adjudicated by judges with experience, thus giving elimination rounds participants higher-quality decisions. 

C. Require Judge Training

I was tasked with doing the optional Debate Judge Training at NSDA Nationals this year (alongside the excellent Marti Benham, this year’s recipient of the Ralph E. Carey Award!). This was a grueling 90-minute session that reminded me just how acute the curse of knowledge is. Many judges had never used Tabroom before, did not know the topic prior to arriving at the training session, and were unfamiliar with even basic debate concepts. And these were the judges motivated enough to show up to an optional 90-minute debate training—imagine the judges who didn’t even have the motivation to attend. 

Judges asked not only many questions about the logistical process (which is reasonable, because Tabroom and judging in-person is a foreign experience to many), but also questions about their respective debate events that made it clear that they were unaware of how to even begin adjudicating the round in a way that would enhance the experience of the debaters they were judging. When some of the questions included asking if it was reasonable to vote for the debater who won the most amount of arguments (an absurdly implausible view of debate judging) and if a good judge ought to refuse to vote on an argument that they personally disagreed with (perhaps the one thing that a judge should refrain from doing as much as possible), it should be clear that judges need some training prior to the tournament. 

I see no reason why this judge training cannot be made both mandatory and available prior to the tournament. The tournament already requires judges to take the Culturally Competent Judging course prior to the tournament; why can’t we also require judges to take a brief online training course for judging debate prior to the tournament? It wouldn’t be difficult for someone to create a simple NSDA Learn course on judge training that wouldn’t last more than 90 minutes that judges would have to complete prior to the tournament. If judges are already willing to give a week of their lives to this tournament, they can be required to give an extra 90 minutes to make both their own and the debaters’ lives easier. 

One model that I have floated in the past is the “Round Feedback” model. This is where judges would watch a single final round of their respective debate event and submit a sample ballot for the round. That sample ballot would then be made available for viewing by students and coaches. That would give judges both exposure to their assigned debate event as well as allow competitors to see the judging process of their judge. 

Even if the training prior to the tournament were limited to just logistics alone, that would help prevent information overload, where judges are just pummeled with information for 90-minutes on the first day of the tournament that they have no hope of recalling, giving judges more space between information dumps that would greatly help them meaningfully internalize said information. 

D. Require a Minimum Number of Rounds Judged

This is almost certainly the requirement most likely to exacerbate inequality, so it’s the one I’m least wedded to, but I think that it should be the case that judges should have judged at least one tournament prior to NSDA Nationals, so requiring schools to submit judges who have judged a minimum number of rounds, e.g., four rounds, would ensure that judges at least have some familiarity with their assigned event. 

E. Increase Decision Time

I think that the limited decision time as well as the constant prompting of the tournament officials to submit decisions as quickly as possible and to fill in comments later creates a perverse incentive to make decisions as quickly as possible without regard to the quality of that decision. That is usually not a recipe for crafting a high-quality decision that reflects a fair assessment of the arguments presented in round.

Let’s be honest, the average judge barely knows how to find their prior ballots on Tabroom.com, let alone be motivated to go back and enter additional feedback. I type a decent bit faster than the average judge and am typically able to efficiently give feedback based on my years of judging experience. I also have a strong motivation to offer lots of feedback (I think many of my ballots at more traditional tournaments often are around 1,000 words or so). Yet even I found it difficult to find the time and motivation to go back and fill in comments on the ballot given the compressed nature of the decision time.

I understand the logistical reasons behind encouraging prompt submission, especially now that the tournament is (finally) power-matching preliminary rounds. However, even a quick skim of the tournament schedule shows that there is ample time during the day to pencil in an extra 10-15 minutes per flight for feedback time without compromising on the integrity of the schedule (seriously, rounds start at 8 a.m. and conclude as late as 8 a.m.). Additionally, large swaths of rounds finished well ahead of schedule, with some flight 2 rounds starting a mere 20 minutes after the scheduled start time of flight 1 (since debates would often start as soon as pairings came out 30 minutes before the scheduled start time).

It would not bring the tournament to a screeching halt if the schedule allotted a few extra minutes for rendering decisions that could be the difference between a debater advancing or not at the tournament. For example, in the semifinals, I flipped back and forth on a decision several times before finally being prompted by tournament officials to just submit. While some hold the mentality that rounds are easy to resolve or decide (and they often are), I feel that there should be more emphasis on ensuring that judges aren’t missing some important argument or failing to consider the interaction between certain arguments that could tip the decision one way or the other. Had I been given another five minutes to decide the round, I could have easily voted the other way (not that it ultimately mattered as I was on the bottom of a 3-2 decision anyways). 

Encouraging judges to be a little more meticulous in their feedback and decision and facilitating that by allocating more time seems an easy fix to at least somewhat improve the quality of ballots and decisions from the tournament. 

F. Allow (More) Oral Feedback

I will not rehash this debate in its entirety here given my many lengthy diatribes on this issue. I think it is obvious that even if oral feedback is not always good, that barring it is far worse. The only additional thought I offer here is a little self-congratulatory but also something worth mentioning. Over the course of the tournament, several debaters that I judged over the season came up to me and thanked me for the feedback that I gave them in the post-round and mentioned how valuable they found it (something I found to be in line with my own experiences as a debater from Oklahoma, where the most valuable judging advice often came from a judge finding me upon the conclusion of a round to offer a few thoughts that they could not fully express on the written ballot). 

Of course, I recognize that not all judges offer the type of feedback that I can (I do coach debate as a job whereas the average judge has made the far wiser decision to do something productive with their life), but I also think many judges do have valuable advice to offer to debaters that they cannot proffer simply because ballots are often poor mediums to communicate advice given the previous point about limited decision time.

While the tournament has made important and meaningful strides in allowing oral feedback following elimination rounds, the tournament allotted very little time to said feedback, depriving students of the ability to ask clarification questions about the feedback or the decision, an important component of learning. Additionally, oral feedback is heavily discouraged in the preliminary rounds because of similar time constraints and because much of the feedback is often contingent on the ultimate outcome of the decision. I do think that the tournament has made important gains in allowing oral feedback, but could benefit from more of it.

4. Logistics

For many high school students, this was their first time attending NSDA Nationals in-person. For me, traveling for debate was among the more formative experiences in my life, exposing me to new cultures, locations, and food. As a coach from Wyoming mentioned to me in passing, for many students, this is their first time leaving the state, flying, or trying food from different cultures. However, such benefits come with logistical drawbacks. 

Another coach from Wyoming expressed frustration at the fact that the tournament was not well suited for smaller teams because of the wide variation in tournament locations. As I mentioned in my previous post about tips for in-person NSDA Nationals, coordinating travel is quite difficult for small schools without access to a wealth of resources. For a school like Apple Valley that is well-funded and has access to multiple coaches and vehicles, coordinating travel was not too burdensome. However, for a smaller school with a single coach and maybe one extra chaperone taking four students in four different events, coordinating travel became a nightmare. With event locations scattered across the city, some schools would have to leave their hotel as early as 6:00 a.m. just so they would have ample time to drop off students at their competition sites. This imposed extra burdens on coaches who are already stretched thin (both physically and emotionally). 

I think that for all the faults of the Dallas Sheraton location (hour long elevator lines anybody?), it did at least one thing well—it made it significantly easier for schools to deal with travel. With only one location, it was easier for coaches to supervise and transport their kids. I believe that’s something worth considering in the future for location host sites. 

5. The Food Was Meh...

Was it just me or was the food experience in Louisville incredibly underwhelming? Not only were the few actual restaurants that we went to incredibly overpriced and unsatisfying (we ate at Guy Fieri’s Smokehouse and Gordon Biersch Brewery), but every single chain restaurant we went to (McDonalds, Taco Bell, Panera, Popeyes, Chipotle, SmashBurger, Qdoba, TGI Fridays, and a few others I’m sure I missed) felt like they were serving an inferior version of what other locations served. Not sure if this was just me, but I felt like this was a fairly widely shared sentiment this weekend. 

6. Louisville Was Too Hot… 

Never have I ever been more convinced by the value of trees in reducing urban heat than having to walk two blocks to pick up food. As all the evidence I cut for our Climate Justice AFF suggests, climate change is real and represents a serious threat for civilization. I didn’t have to look further than the fact that Louisville was hit by a record-breaking heat wave, making walking outside nearly impossible, especially for competitors who had to wear suits in the blistering heat. Given that next year’s NSDA Nationals is slated to be held in Phoenix, AZ, where the asphalt literally melts during the summer, I can only say good luck to all those attending next year. 

Conclusion

In-person NSDA Nationals is an experience that I hope everyone competing in forensics can eventually experience—the electrifying environment, the prestige, and the scale of the tournament is something to behold and experience. I overall enjoyed my time in Louisville, but I think that there are definitely some things that can be improved to make future NSDA National Tournaments a more fun and rewarding experience for debaters.

8 Tips for In-Person NSDA Nationals by Lawrence Zhou

Lawrence Zhou is the 2014 NSDA National Champion in Lincoln-Douglas debate. He is a graduate assistant at the University of Wyoming, head coach of Team Wyoming, and an assistant coach at Apple Valley High School. He was formerly the Director of Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Victory Briefs.

The Opinions Expressed In This Post Are Those of the Author And Not Necessarily Those Of Victory Briefs. 

Lawrence lays out 8 tips for anyone attending NSDA Nationals in-person, including thoughts about the Covid-19 guidelines and how to adjust practice and presentation after years of online competition. 

---

Woo! In-person NSDA Nationals is back, this time in Louisville, Kentucky! I haven’t been at NSDA Nationals in-person since 2018 when it was held in Fort Lauderdale (I sadly missed 2019 as I was studying abroad in China) and the online NSDA Nationals in 2020 and 2021 were alright, but clearly no substitute for the experience of physically being at the largest academic competition in the world. 

For some, this might be your first in-person tournament ever (and congrats to those of you who started debating during the pandemic and stuck with this activity!) and there might be a lot of confusion or a general lack of awareness about how in-person NSDA Nationals works. I have already seen several messages or posts in various online forums inquiring about NSDA Nationals. So, I decided to gather most of my thoughts about this tournament and put them in this one article in the hope that this helps some people thinking about competing at in-person NSDA Nationals. This article is mostly geared towards students in LD and PF, but there are sections in here that might also be helpful to new coaches. 

Before I get into my specific tips, the NSDA National Tournament website is available here: https://www.speechanddebate.org/national-tournament-2022/. I would spend time clicking around the various pages, including the Coaches and Students tab, as this website will be very important and might answer many of your questions you have about the tournament itself. I would say that most of the information that you need to know for the tournament can be found somewhere on the webpage, but it’s not the easiest to navigate if you’re not familiar with it, so spending some time just exploring it can be quite helpful and answer a lot of your questions. 

I also know that some states use alternative tabulation sites like Joy of Tournaments or Speechwire, but the National Tournament will be held on Tabroom.com here and so I would also recommend being familiar with Tabroom.com’s features, including the Paradigms feature, where you can look up the thoughts and beliefs about debate that a judge might have before the round begins. If you’re new to Tabroom.com, the NSDA has a webpage that has helpful articles on getting started with Tabroom.com. 

Finally, I would consider skimming part of the High School Unified Manual, particularly the section starting on page 109 titled “Tournament Procedures for Debate Events.” For those of you who have never attended, the way that NSDA Nationals works for debate events is a bit strange, so making sure you’re familiar with the way it operates is important. 

The short version is that the debate side of things can be broken into two distinctive sections: preliminary rounds and elimination rounds. In prelim rounds, each competitor will debate 6 prelim rounds with 2 judges in each prelim round, which leaves a total of 12 possible ballots to earn in prelims. Any competitor who receives at least 8 out of 12 ballots will advance to elims. The distribution of the ballots does not matter, so long as it totals up to 8. Once in elims, the tournament then operates as a double-elimination bracket (prelim ballot count becomes more or less irrelevant here), where any competitor who loses 2 rounds in elims will be eliminated from the tournament until there are just 2 debaters remaining. All elim rounds are paneled and power-matched. 

Without further ado, here are my 8 tips for returning to in-person competition at NSDA Nationals. 

1. Pay special attention to the Covid-19 guidelines. 

Even as mask use declines in the wake of a federal judge’s ruling striking down mask mandates (a judge who, I might add, was deemed “not qualified” by the American Bar Association) and airlines’ decisions to remove mask mandates, the World Health Organization still recommends wearing masks in public spaces because even one-way masking helps. To that end, I’m quite happy that the NSDA has recognized that Covid-19 is not over and is taking reasonable precautions to prevent Covid-19 outbreaks. 

The NSDA has released a comprehensive document concerning Covid-19 health and safety guidelines. At eight pages long, it’s not an easy read, but here are some of the main things to make sure you’re aware of: 

• All individuals attending NSDA Nationals are required to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 and upload verification of vaccination through VaccineCheck. A full description of the verification process and what constitutes being “fully vaccinated” can be found in the document. 
• All individuals attending NSDA Nationals are required to wear a mask with some exceptions such as while actively consuming food or beverages and while performing. While the tournament does not mandate a particular type of mask, I strongly concur with the National Tournament’s recommendation of using high-quality KN95 or N95 masks (you can find a list of where to buy trusted masks here or here; I personally use Project N95). I have found that masks that utilize head ties or straps where the straps loop over the head instead of over the ears (such as this one) are far more comfortable to wear for extended periods of time. Also, there’s evidence that suggests that masks secured using ear loops are less effective than masks secured using head straps. 
• There will be on- and off-site Covid-19 testing sites. I would still personally recommend several members of your party bring along some rapid Covid-19 tests for your group. 
• There is a fairly comprehensive section outlining what to do if one or more of your party tests positive for Covid-19 during the National Tournament. I would make sure that everyone is aware of that process. 

While many competitors may choose to remove their masks while competing (see the official document linked above for guidance on this policy), some competitors may still choose to compete while wearing a mask. First, if you plan on not wearing a mask while competing, please be respectful to those who choose to keep their mask on while competing. Second, if you plan on wearing a mask while competing, please make sure to practice speaking with the mask on. This post by the American Speech-Language-hearing Association and this post from CNN have some great advice on how to ensure you are still properly communicating while wearing a mask. 

2. Pack in advance.

Many debaters and coaches haven’t traveled to an away tournament in years. When I was preparing for my first in-person travel tournament in nearly two years, I realized I had forgotten how to efficiently pack for debate trips. The worst is when you get to the tournament hotel and realize you forgot your phone charger or toothpaste. While this is not the end of the world (most teams will do a Walmart or Target run on the first night to grab snacks, drinks, and items that people forgot to pack), it is often a minor inconvenience that can be one additional point of stress in an already stressful trip. The best way to solve this is just to plan in advance. 

Here are some of my general packing tips: 

• I would strongly recommend creating a packing list to help organize your packing. 
• I would also strongly recommend packing at least one day before the trip so you have time to double-check your packing. 
• Keep in mind the weather in Louisville (you can find the average weather patterns for June here) and make sure you’re packing weather appropriate clothing. 
• Pack lightly for your personal item or backpack that you will bring with you to the competition venue. You will be walking a decent bit each day, and anyone who is walking with one of those massive backpacks is going to be so much more sweaty and tired compared to everyone else. 
• Victory Briefs also released an article a few years ago detailing what some camp staffers would carry in their debate backpacks if you’re looking for some inspiration (even if some of the item recommendations are a bit dated). 

Here is a list of the items that I would consider including in your packing checklist (this is not meant to be comprehensive): 

• Appropriate competition clothing, 3-5 days.
• Casual clothing, including comfortable clothing for travel, 5-7 days.
• Socks and underwear.
• Wallet and ID.
• Refillable water bottle.
• Laptop and charger.
• Cell phone and charger.
• Portable battery.
• Headphones or earbuds.
• An extension cable (these are lifesavers for buildings where outlets are limited, I personally use this one from Anker).
• Face masks and rapid Covid-19 tests.
• Debate specific items like flow paper, colored pens, and a timer.
• Relevant toiletries like toothpaste, toothbrush, deodorant, facial cleanser, lotion, etc. (keep in mind the 3-1-1 liquids rule if you’re flying).
• Any medications or supplements you need.

3. Coordinate travel.

This part is more geared towards coaches and adults who have to worry about the logistical side of debate tournaments, but before I get into those boring details, I have some advice about travel for students. 

This lecture from the 2020 Dartmouth Debate Institute by the 2020 Rex Copeland winner Miles Gray is one of the best lectures I’ve seen about what it takes to win a major national circuit tournament. While most of the advice is geared towards policy debate, there is so much insight and advice packed within this lecture that is broadly applicable no matter what type of debate event you do. In particular, I would really recommend listening to the section that starts around the 28 minute mark which is about the travel and rest day and gives great advice concerning how to approach the travel day in terms of sleep, food, and hygiene. There are other great nuggets of wisdom throughout the lecture, including tidbits on how to perform at the highest levels against specific teams, how to deal with mental health during a tournament, and how to effectively leverage the resources of a team, so I strongly recommend watching the whole thing even if you’re not a policy debater and just bracketing off a lot of the advice that is specific to the intense preparation process of policy debate. The short version is that you have to remember that traveling is tiring, even when you’re not doing anything (and this is especially true for those of you on the west coast). Regardless of whether you’re flying or driving, travel is draining. Don’t use this for doing lots of debate work. Instead, use it to relax and prepare both mentally and physically for the tournament. I’ll discuss this more in the 6th section of this article. 

Now for those who have to pay attention to the nitty-gritty details of traveling to the tournament, there are two similar but distinct travel schedules that need to be coordinated: travel to the tournament and travel during the tournament. 

I can’t speak much about traveling to the tournament. Hopefully, your coach, chaperone, or trusted adult will be dealing with travel logistics. If you’re in charge of coordinating travel to the tournament, I recommend looking at Debate Travel Tips, a travel blog written by Lexy Green, director of forensics at College Prep, that contains a lot of great travel tips useful to anyone but debate coaches especially. There are also tons of excellent resources on how to book cheap flights and hotels out there, though it’ll take some time to go through them all. 

My best advice I can offer for traveling to the tournament is that the best way to reduce costs is to share them. Find out which other schools from your area are attending and find a way to share a ride with them, split hotel rooms with them, or otherwise share costs. For example, when I went to NSDA Nationals while I was in high school in Oklahoma, many of the Oklahoma schools would coordinate travel (usually by caravan and school vehicle) to the tournament. Hopefully, travel to the tournament isn’t the responsibility of any student, but it’s still worth knowing a bit about travel logistics. 

Traveling during the tournament can also be quite difficult. Due to the sheer scale of the tournament (I believe the front page of the National Tournament page says there will be approximately 6,000 competitors at NSDA Nationals this year), the way the tournament works is that each main competition event has its own building (usually just a local school building), so that extemp might be in one school building on one side of town while policy debate might be in another building on the other side of town. For smaller teams with only one or two entries, this may not be such a large concern, but for teams that have multiple entries across multiple events, this can pose a large logistical challenge. 

I would first recommend looking at the Coaches tab on the NSDA website and looking at the section about Competition Venues. I would then look at the Google Doc called High School Tournament Event Schedules and Venues which will show a more detailed schedule of which competition events are located in which buildings. For example, LD will be held at Atherton High School (Google Maps link here), while PF will be held at Doss High School and Trunnell Elementary School (Google Maps link here). These schools are about 10 miles away from each other, and I imagine it could easily take over half an hour to travel between these schools during the busier hours of the day (when I looked up directions between these two schools as I writing this article, Google Maps said it would take 23 minutes with usual traffic). If your school or district has a team competing in PF and another in LD, having the same driver drop off teams at both venues seems inefficient. Finding a way to share resources and responsibilities with others helps a lot. 

For example, the Oklahoma schools that went would usually stay in the same hotel and schools would divide up travel responsibilities at the tournament, so that one school might take all the district’s LDers to the LD building while another school might take all the original oratory kids to the original oratory building. You can also try and coordinate with other small schools attending and find a way to share costs that way through forums like the High School LD Debate Facebook group or the r/debate subreddit and the various Discord servers associated with it (explore at your own risk, many of these sites are student run). 

4. Explore.

One of the best parts of traveling for debate is that you get to experience different cuisines and cultures. Personally, debate is the reason why I’ve been able to travel to many different places, from Alaska to D.C. and even abroad to China! 

While Louisville isn’t exactly the most exciting destination to travel to, it still has many fun things for people to see and experience. I might recommend taking a look at what Trip Advisor recommends to do in Louisville or seeing what the Louisville tourism website suggests, including what restaurants they feature. Personally, I’ll probably try and avoid some of the more popular attractions on the weekend since the city will be flooded with other speech and debate people, but I will be on the lookout for some good food in the city. I would strongly recommend trying to bake in some time in your schedule to do something fun as a team or district. Consider assigning someone to be in charge of planning your touristy excursions (and make sure they’re sensitive to financial or other constraints that members of the team might have). 

5. Adjust presentation practice.

When tournaments were primarily online, many of the aspects of public speaking were relegated to the sidelines. There was less of a focus on body language, facial expressions, vocal modulation, and composure compared to in-person events. But as Jo Spurgeon, the 2020 NSDA National Champion in Lincoln-Douglas debate, argues in a piece for Triumph Debate, “People like to claim a strict divide between speech and debate events. The issue with this, though, is that many of the skills you learn in speech… cater nicely to debate. People who are smoother speakers, modulate their voices, and can at least feign interest in what they are saying are subconsciously more memorable and more persuasive.” I very much agree with this advice! To that end, I’ll just add a few more thoughts here: 

• Practice speaking. Public speaking is not easy (it still remains one of the most common fears in the American public) and requires practice. This means practice sounding persuasive. Focus on inflection, pronunciation, articulation, and all the usual stuff. This video by Chris Anderson on how to give a great TED talk is an excellent watch for improving public speaking skills. There are so many resources out there for learning more effective public speaking, so I leave it to you to discover those on your own, but just make sure to actually practice! 
• Focus on how you present in a physical space. If you sway, fidget, or otherwise display body language that conveys that you’re nervous or not confident, that will damage your credibility. Body language heavily affects your public speaking and so it is worth spending some time focusing on this skill. Do drills! I would strongly recommend that you record yourself presenting and look for eye contact, composure, and other non-verbal elements of your presentation that can affect how the judge perceives you. 
• Use paper copies if possible. When I competed back in the dark ages of 2014, using computers in round was just becoming commonplace, and it wasn’t until after I graduated that it was more common than not to see competitors read cases and blocks from their computers instead of from paper. For a while, using paper debate cases was evidence that a debater was stuck in the ancient days of when there were only typewriters and the cell phone hadn’t yet been invented. Today, that trend is reversing, with more and more evidence piling up in favor of ditching our reliance on screens, including findings that taking notes by hand is superior to typing them out and that computers are often larger sources of distraction than productivity. I think there is a lot of merit to these views and I think it says something about how one should prepare for NSDA Nationals. In particular, I think that paper is the way to go for NSDA Nationals. Not only is there evidence that paper is still easier for reading compared to screens, but I believe that reading from paper confers significant presentational advantages. Having printed cases signals to the judge that you are well-prepared (as you took the time to format and print your cases prior to the start of the tournament), that you care about formality (as using printed notes often looks more professional than burying your head into a laptop), and that you take the activity seriously. I also think there’s something classy and nice about a debater who approaches the podium with just some papers in their hand, ready to debate, compared to debaters who have to awkwardly carry their laptop and flow up to speak. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have your computer with you or that you shouldn’t use your computer if the need arises (e.g., if someone makes an argument that you have blocks to on your computer but you haven’t printed off those blocks yet), but I do think you should try and have at least your constructive speeches on paper. 
• Attire matters. Not only do formal clothes give off the appearance that you take the competition seriously, but there is also evidence that wearing formal clothing actually confers cognitive advantages to the wearer, making them feel more powerful. I would spend a little time ensuring that what you’re wearing is professional and conveys the image you want the judge to see. And yes, obviously professional clothing is often expensive, but thrift stores typically carry formal clothing at severely discounted prices. 

One caveat is that there are racial and gender differences in many aspects of presentation that should be considered. For example, there are well-documented biases in standards of “professionalism” for racial minorities, vocal differences between men and women (where masculine voices are preferred, an effect well-documented in the political arena), and beauty bias (a part of the halo effect, where presentation of attractiveness is then correlated with positive judgements of a person). Each of these deserves its own article because they are serious enough that could affect the outcomes of debates and are something that debaters should at least be aware of. Of course, the NSDA has put out guidelines on Culturally Competent Judging, but simply having judges being aware of biases rarely is sufficient to override those biases as work on implicit bias has suggested. 

6. Stay healthy and sleep.

A few months ago, I penned a short piece on ways in which debate tournaments can take a massive toll on your health. I also released a file called “Sleep Good” (available here) on the important cognitive and health benefits that proper sleep promotes. The tl;dr is that debate tournaments, particularly long ones like NSDA Nationals, take a massive toll on physical health. 

Natalie Schaller, the 2017 NSDA National Champion in Lincoln-Douglas debate, suggested in an interview that “caring for your health is important. Don’t goof off – get as much sleep as you can, drink water, don’t go overboard on the coffee, and try to find some healthy meals. What’s more important is staying mentally strong throughout the tournament, because Nationals really is a mental game.” I strongly agree with each of those points, which I’ll briefly elaborate on in turn. 

Here are just a few practical suggestions: 

• Drink lots of water. Caffeine in limited quantities is safe (and I personally consume waaay too much caffeine daily), but there’s definitely a risk of drinking too much caffeine which can come with a whole host of negative side effects. Many students also consume lots of energy drinks like Red Bull and that can also induce side effects like dehydration, anxiety, and insomnia. While some caffeine is fine, that should not serve as an adequate substitute for quality sleep or water. Water is great and you should drink more of it. 
• Eat. My junior year, I basically didn’t eat for an entire day of competition because the nerves were simply too much. That was absurdly unhealthy. Don’t do that. Try to eat somewhat regularly and eat healthy. Fast food satisfies cravings but rarely is ever good for you, especially during a tournament. Try your best to eat healthy and regularly. 
• Sleep. Again, I’ll plug my “Sleep Good” file here if you remain unconvinced about the benefits of sleep, but NSDA Nationals is a marathon not a sprint. It lasts a whole week. If you don’t sleep, you won’t perform well, simple as that. You’ll simply perform worse as the tournament progresses if you don’t make an effort to sleep (and that performance decline correlates with when you need to be at your peak performance in elimination rounds against other top debaters). This doesn’t mean you can’t stay up and hang out with your friends, but it does mean you must have limits on what you do and that you should try and sleep well. If you must ruin your sleep schedule, at least wait until you’re finished competing. 
• Move around. You’ll probably be moving a decent bit throughout the tournament, but as I’ve noted in a previous article about the benefits of walking, you should try and take brisk walks every so often for both the health and cognitive benefits it affords in the short-term. Even though it’ll be a bit hot in Louisville in the summer, I would also recommend taking a walk outside every so often, mostly just to get an opportunity to take your mask off and breathe fresh air for a while. 

7. Be nice to your coach.

This is some advice that I wish I could’ve given my younger self. NSDA Nationals is a stressful time for all, but especially the coaches. Many coaches are also full-time teachers who are in the middle of a national education crisis where they aren’t just responsible for children’s education and well-being for also, oftentimes, essential childcare. Coupled with the fact that teachers are underpaid for all this work and having to deal with national culture wars infecting their classrooms, it’s no wonder that teachers struggle so much with stress and burnout. Many coaches teach debate with almost no real financial return, forced to give up valuable weekends that could be used for grading, relaxing, or spending time with family and friends to escort a bunch of rowdy high schoolers to a tournament in exchange for a pithy stipend. The reason that debate coaches stick around? Because they care about their students. 

As a student, it’s often hard to appreciate the impact a coach can make in your life in the moment (the Humans of New York posted a story on May 9th about the incredible story of a single debate coach who made a transformative difference in someone’s life), but especially at the last and largest tournament of the season, please go out of your way to both express gratitude for your coach and to make their job a little easier. Something as simple as offering to carry their bag or buying them a coffee during the trip can go a long way. 

Not everyone will have the opportunity to thank their coach on stage during the thank you speech that precedes a final debate round, but that shouldn’t stop you from thanking your coach anyways. Thank and appreciate them for all they’ve done even when no one is looking. Your attendance at NSDA Nationals is a privilege, not a right, and it’s only made possible by the selfless sacrifice of your debate coach. 

8. Have fun!

Bennett Eckert, the 2016 NSDA National Champion in Lincoln-Douglas debate, remarked in an interview a few years ago, “Winning is great, but it’s important to enjoy Nationals while you’re there. Don’t think of it as some stressful, intense last tournament (especially if you’re a senior). Think of it as a last hurrah to celebrate the end of your career or year.” I couldn't agree more. 

Nationals isn’t fun when it’s treated as a stress fest. My junior year, I spent the time off in-between rounds simply stressed out and worrying about how I would fare in the next round. By the time I was eliminated in the quarterfinals, I couldn’t have been more relieved. I finally started eating again, talking to people again, and enjoying debate again. I was thrilled to remove some of my dress clothes and simply observe the semifinals as a spectator. 

My senior year went far better. I was less stressed, partially due to the fact I had already placed well the year prior and partially due to the fact that I had prepared more efficiently for Nationals that year, and consequently, my experience at Nationals was far better. I actually hung out with the other Oklahoma debate people, met some new debate people along the way, and ate a decent bit of Kansas City barbeque. Not only did I have a more competitively successful tournament, but I also enjoyed it far more. 

I guarantee you that no one is really going to care how well you did at NSDA Nationals within a few years. Even winning the tournament isn’t that big of a deal (I can confidently say that the vast majority of people I meet in debate nowadays have zero clue of my high school debate record). What you will remember is the experience of Nationals and the connections made along the way. I have almost no recollection of debating in finals, but I do recall the good memories from each NSDA Nationals I attended. 

Please, go out of your way to talk to fellow competitors, to meet new people, and to enjoy the event itself. NSDA Nationals can be overwhelming. There are so many people from all across the country. Apart from a few elitists who can be justly shunned, most people there are nice, friendly, and want to connect with fellow forensics competitors too! 

Conclusion 

NSDA Nationals is a one-of-a-kind event in its sheer scope and size. It can be a bit intimidating when you first attend, but if you try your best and have fun, it’ll be an incredible experience that you can be proud of for years to come. Hopefully, these 8 tips helped you and good luck to those competing in Louisville this summer!

Walk and Talk: Some Thoughts About Thinking About Debate Camp by Lawrence Zhou

Lawrence Zhou is a graduate assistant at the University of Wyoming, head coach of Team Wyoming, and an assistant coach at Apple Valley High School. He was formerly the Director of Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Victory Briefs.

The health and cognitive benefits of exercise are often discussed but rarely applied in the context of debate education. In this post, Lawrence reviews some of the research on the benefits of walking and movement and how we can incorporate these findings into both online and in-person debate camp curriculum. 

---

Introduction

I remember while reading Thinking, Fast and Slow being struck by how many of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s most interesting thoughts and discoveries seemed to happen while they were out for a stroll. In the book, Kahneman would describe the many walks the incredible pair (basically responsible for pioneering the field of behavioral economics) would have outside of the office and how those walks often produced some of the most interesting discoveries about their research topics at the time. Kahneman would talk about how the walks weren’t just to get a change of scenery from the lab, but how they were strategic uses of time that yielded tangible benefits including stimulating mental activity. 

At first, I didn’t think much of this. It just seemed like another point in favor of the fact that exercise is, in fact, good (a message that’s been drilled into me from watching too many Matt D’Avella videos). It’s good for both physical and mental health, boosts productivity, and improves cognition. But almost everyone knows that, even if not everyone actually exercises. Blah blah blah, sleep more, exercise more, stay healthy, I’d heard it all a million times before. 

But by thinking of walking as just another form of exercise, I was actually missing out on something important. It’s not just that walking is exercise and exercise produces generally keener minds in the long run, it’s that there is something valuable about walking itself and how it shapes the way we think in the short run. We often think of the benefits of exercise as coming later down the road, but there’s also something immediately beneficial about just taking a nice walk. 

I didn’t revisit the importance of walking until I listened to Annie Murphy Paul’s excellent interview on the Ezra Klein Show where Paul was explaining some of the key messages of her new book The Extended Mind: The Power of Thinking Outside the Brain (you can find the full transcript of the episode here). The thrust of the episode focused on critiquing the metaphor of the mind as a computer where intelligence is solely isolated within the brain, arguing that the human mind is instead contextual. She argues that we should think of our bodies, social networks, and surroundings as “extra-neural” inputs that have a “profound influence on cognition.” Drawing from the work of philosophers Andy Clark and David Chalmers who pioneered the extended mind thesis (EMT) in their 1998 paper also entitled “The Extended Mind,” Paul argues that not only have we been thinking about thinking wrong, but we have also been thinking about how to set up society wrong. 

While I’m not sure if I fully agree with all of Paul’s criticism, I’m pretty persuaded by many of Paul’s points, especially the ones she makes about embodied cognition (the idea that thought is shaped by bodily experience). In Chapter 2 “Thinking with Movement,” Paul advances many practical ideas forward, but the one I want to focus on is walking. 

The Importance of Walking

The reason I rediscovered this idea of walking is because in Chapter 2 of The Extended Mind, Paul details the power of walks to Kahneman and Tversky’s (the economists I mentioned in the introduction) creative process. She writes: 

Kahneman spends a few months each year in Berkeley, California, and on most days he takes a four-mile walk on a marked path in the hills, with a view of San Francisco Bay. Ever the scientist, Kahneman has subjected the experience to close analysis. “I usually keep track of my time and have learned a fair amount about effort from doing so,” he writes. “I have found a speed, about 17 minutes for a mile, which I experience as a stroll. I certainly exert physical effort and burn more calories at that speed than if I sat in a recliner, but I experience no strain, no conflict, and no need to push myself. I am also able to think and work while walking at that rate. Indeed, I suspect that the mild physical arousal of the walk may spill over into greater mental alertness.”

But it’s not just the story of a brilliant pair of researchers that led me to believe that maybe there was something special about walking. It’s because that story lines up with some of the best empirical research on the power of walking. Paul continues: 

Kahneman’s careful self-observations are backed up by empirical research. Moderate-intensity exercise, practiced for a moderate length of time, improves our ability to think both during and immediately after the activity. The positive changes documented by scientists include an increase in the capacity to focus attention and resist distraction; greater verbal fluency and cognitive flexibility; enhanced problem-solving and decision-making abilities; and increased working memory, as well as more durable long-term memory for what is learned. The proposed mechanisms by which these changes occur include heightened arousal (as Kahneman speculated), increased blood flow to the brain, and the release of a number of neurochemicals, which increase the efficiency of information transmission in the brain and which promote the growth of neurons, or brain cells. The beneficial mental effects of moderately intense activity have been shown to last for as long as two hours after exercise ends.

The evidence for these claims is quite strong and now fairly widely accepted. Walking has been shown to have a myriad of health benefits, from being a low-impact form of exercise with substantial health benefits to a useful tool to counteract mild cognitive impairments. But, as Paul notes, it also has substantial cognitive benefits. As Susan Hrach observes in her book Minding Bodies: How Physical Space, Sensation, and Movement Affect Learning, the body must first be interacting with the world before the mind is opened up and engaged for learning. 

Dr. Jeff Fidler, a radiologist at the Mayo Clinic, used to regularly review tens of thousands of images a day sitting down. Nowadays, Fidler does so while walking on a “walking workstation,” which is just a treadmill in front of a large screen that displays his radiological slides (you may have seen treadmill and standing desks being advertised as WFH was becoming more popular). Curious to test out whether walking while working impaired performance, Fidler and his colleagues set up a simple study to see if walking while working was worth it. While the stated objective of the study was to help “reduce sedentary work environments” to “help reduce obesity,” the results of the study suggested another important benefit—physicians who were walking while reviewing radiological images detected more irregularities present in the images than physicians who were sitting while reviewing the images. In other words, walking improved the cognition and performance of the radiologists. 

The power of walking and moving is increasingly recognized in education as well. For example, researchers Christine Langhanns and Hermann Müller found in a 2018 study published in the journal Psychological Research that students who were told to sit still performed worse at solving math problems compared to students who were moving around. Reed A. Omary is a professor of radiology and Vanderbilt University and he often hosts meetings while walking around campus. He says it helps put participants at ease, encourages physical exercise, and stimulates creative thinking. Daniel Schwartz, dean of the Stanford Graduate School of Education, often encourages doctoral students to walk with him as they brainstorm about their dissertations and has published research in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition showing that walks improve creative thinking. 

As Marily Oppezzo, a behavioral and learning scientist with a doctorate in Educational Psychology from Stanford, and Daniel Schwartz conclude in their study, “Walking opens up the free flow of ideas.” Oppezzo has even given a TEDx talk on this subject (a very easy listen and one that I recommend you give a listen to if you don’t want to read the whole study) where she very simply outlines the case for walking and thinking. 

The power of walking is often overlooked, both in terms of its health but especially its cognitive benefits. And the importance of movement on cognition has never seriously entered the conversation in debate camp curriculum. In the next section, I offer some suggestions for how to incorporate walking and movement into debate camp instruction, both online and in-person. 

Implications for Debate Camp

In the vein of some of the old “Curriculum Corner” posts that Marshall Bierson (then Thompson), Sunhee Simon, and I wrote a few years ago, I conclude with recommendations on how these findings could potentially be employed at debate camp, both online and in-person. 

Online Camp

While some camps are making the transition back to in-person for the summer, some camps will remain online for cost, safety, and convenience reasons. It’s no secret that online educational experiences are worse by many metrics. Students have a harder time focusing and this translates to noticeable learning loss and learning delays, worse academic performance especially for students with ADHD, and negative health impacts. While there are many steps online camps can take to improve the quality of online instruction (I found the recommendations by Barbara Oakley, Beth Rogowsky, and Terrence Sejnowski in their book Uncommon Sense Teaching: Practical Insights in Brain Science to Help Students Learn to be especially helpful), one important step should be to encourage students to move. 

Several studies have shown that online education is, not surprisingly, associated with decreased physical activity. While many online debate camps have built in “time away” from computers into their schedules to reduce Zoom fatigue, it’s clear that many students are not leaving their computers (whether because they are doing more debate work, socializing online, just watching YouTube videos, or something else) and that is not only is that harmful from a health standpoint (e.g., contributing to increased eye strain), but it’s also harmful from a learning standpoint. As the evidence cited earlier shows, it is important to encourage physical movement amongst students. 

There are a few ways to potentially encourage such healthy behavior. There is already good research to show the importance of breaks generally and in educational settings, as it is important to help students focus and develop creativity and social skills. It’s especially important to take breaks in online settings. Camp instructors should consider mandating breaks with suggestions for physical movement and lead by example. For example, encourage students to take a walk, go outside and get some fresh air, or do a few jumping jacks. Oppezzo suggests in her TEDx talk giving people a topic to brainstorm before going on a walk. Lab leaders can also encourage walking outside by assigning students to listen to a podcast as they walk, create competitions to share nature photos that students take by going outside, or even lead a mini-dance competition during the break. I have even seen suggestions to use tools like the pedometers in Apple Watches, Fitbits, or in most phones to have step count competitions as happened in the UK.  

Lab leaders can also do things to encourage movement during lab sessions. For example, lab leaders can have students give speeches while standing. Jeremy Bailenson, founding director of the Stanford Virtual Human Interaction Lab, suggests that people should think about using the whole room they’re videoconferencing from, including having people speak while far away from their camera and move around while they speak. Lab leaders can also encourage students to position their camera so that the audience can see the speaker’s gestures which not only helps for understanding, speaking, and learning, but also encourages physical movement (and even burns a few calories, although not very many). It’s also fine to encourage pacing during lab just like those people who pace while on phone calls. I personally found it very helpful to teach from a standing desk while teaching my online course as I found it to help me focus if I paced around while I spoke. Instructors can also encourage movement-based learning as attaching gestures to concepts helps students learn. Finally, instructors can host class outside, so students can see nature in the background, and encourage students to also go outside during lab (recognizing that it will not be feasible for every student to go outside during lab). 

In my opinion, the key is to make physical movement the norm. Debate, and many academic activities, has a bad problem of glorifying some unhealthy habits like the lack of sleep or exercise. Lab leaders have a responsibility to their students to encourage behaviors and habits that help them become better students and people. Leading by example by talking about the health and cognitive benefits of going on walks and moving around can set the tone for lab early on and promote healthy behavior among students. 

While online camp does pose many problems for learning and none of the suggestions here are a silver bullet, I think that adopting some of the suggestions mentioned above can do a little to make online debate camp a more healthy and educational experience. 

In-Person Camp

As camps like Victory Briefs are returning in-person, now is a good time to think about how to take advantage of all the benefits that in-person camp can offer beyond the social opportunities (not to understate the importance of socializing). In particular, I think now that we have the time to appreciate the benefits of in-person debate and camp, we also have the time to rethink camp’s relationship to movement and cognition. 

One thing that Victory Briefs does is run an inter-lab competition known as Omegathon, a series of competitive events that range from trivia competitions (Pub Quiz!) to games of ninja. I am often known as a camp grouch that hates fun and so I rarely participate in Omegathon, but I think it’s important to have physical activities at camp like tag or scavenger hunts that encourage students to move. I think all camps should consider incorporating some physical activity into the schedule (similar to recess) to encourage more healthy behavior among students and staff alike. Remember, many of the short-term cognitive benefits of exercise can be enjoyed for hours after the exercise ends. 

Lab settings should also consider employing more physical movement into their lesson planning. Using tools like four corner discussions (where students move to corners of the room based on opinions on subjects or their assignments by lab leaders) or mutual discussions (where students move around the room to find partners to discuss new concepts with) can help get students out of their seats and make them move around more. Students should be encouraged to stand more often, including while delivering speeches. Breaks should be employed frequently, with suggestions to move around during those breaks. Labs can also be held outside, especially when the weather outside is nice, which encourages movement and exposes students to a change of scenery and fresh air (and also helps bring people closer with nature, a benefit that Henry David Thoreau extolls in his 1862 essay aptly titled “Walking”). Making movement a part of classroom culture will go a long way to improving students’ mental and physical health. 

Finally, I think the “walk and talk” should be used more often at camp. Back when VBI introduced Dine with a Mind and Dine with Two Minds, the rationale was that being a part of more informal conversations between instructors would be invaluable to students. The same can be said of a “walk and talk,” another tool that can add immense value to both students and instructors while taking advantage of something we already do naturally and similar to what many academics are already doing with their students.

Many of us already implicitly recognize the value of walking and talking. You often find clusters of students, staff, or both, walking to and from activities together, sometimes breaking into spontaneous conversations about debate that would otherwise not occur during formal instructional time. There are a few ways to make walking and talking more common at camp. Mentors (or any other one-on-one meeting session) can encourage walk and talks for some of the sessions (for instance, the ones that don’t involve a drill). Lab leaders can also sign up (individually or in pairs) to walk from the dorms to the cafeteria or from the lab buildings to the electives together and students can join them from the walk. These walks encourage more student bonding and also provide a valuable opportunity for students to learn from the staff. And there can be built in time at the end of the day for instructors to lead short walks across the campus that students can join instructors on. 

Again, I think the important thing is to make physical movement part of the culture, a norm. Instructors should recognize the importance of embodied cognition and avoid trying to make students sit still and focus on cutting cards for hours on end with no break. People learn better when they move and we should encourage more movement, especially when there’s no good reason to be sitting still and not moving.  

Conclusion

While many camp curriculum pages will discuss research about the importance of one-on-one instruction, the importance of retrieval practice, or ideas from Bloom’s taxonomy, one thing that is rarely ever discussed is the importance of movement to both health and learning. Even if no camp adopts a single one of the recommendations I’ve listed here, I think it’s important to at least get the conversation rolling about how we can incorporate movement into learning at debate camp and I think a "walk and talk" is a great place to start.

Go to Sleep by Lawrence Zhou

Lawrence Zhou is a graduate assistant at the University of Wyoming, head coach of Team Wyoming, and an assistant coach at Apple Valley High School. He was formerly the Director of Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Victory Briefs.

Need to convince debaters to sleep, especially during tournaments? Send them this card file.

---

Back when I was coaching at The Harker School a few years ago, we were at some in-person tournament (I believe it was middle school TOC, but my memory could be totally off on that) and one of the other assistant coaches named Matt Liu (then Struth) was chastising the debaters for not going to sleep early enough. The debaters retorted that they had no need for sleep and were intent on staying up the whole night either goofing off or cutting cards.

Soon after, Liu posted a file in the Harker Slack called "Sleep Good" which contained several incredibly qualified pieces of evidence demonstrating the importance of sleep to both health and performance. The first card was from the Harvard Business Review and was called "Sleep Deficit: The Performance Killer," and that article alone convinced me. Since debaters are often persuaded by cards, they begrudgingly accepted the force of the evidence and (claimed they) went to sleep.

I recently finished reading the book Why We Sleep by Matthew Walker (partially inspired by my Health and Debate post) and was reminded of that old Sleep Good file. As any good debater does, I cut some passages from the book that I thought were particularly applicable to debate (although there are so many good chapters from the book that are worth reading independent of its application to debate) and used those passages to update the sleep good file in advance of a college policy tournament the Wyoming team is debating at this weekend.

I have produced that file and made it publicly available below. Please feel free to use the file and cards to convince debaters to sleep. As much as debaters think they can succeed without sleep during tournaments, the scientific evidence strongly suggests the opposite. Go to sleep or lose rounds (and hurt your health)!

Sleep-Good-UT-2-4-22-Liu-ZhouDownload

Why Doc Formatting Matters by Lawrence Zhou

Lawrence Zhou is a graduate assistant at the University of Wyoming, head coach of Team Wyoming, and an assistant coach at Apple Valley High School. He was formerly the Director of Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Victory Briefs.

In this unsolicited diatribe, Lawrence rants about the importance of formatting your documents in a professional and consistent manner, arguing that well formatted documents improve readability and increase credibility. 

---

Introduction

Every summer at debate camp, I am often asked to look over cases that students in my lab write. Most of the time, most of the comments are fairly generic: “Make sure you have complete citations” (the amount of debaters who do not properly cite their evidence and do not comply with the NSDA evidence rules is too high), “make sure your cards have warrants,” “shorten this card which you’ve painted,” etc. These are just the mistakes that you expect to see from budding debaters who attend camp and that’s the whole point of them sending cases to review. 

One comment I give to almost every case submitted to me is “Fix the formatting.” So many of the documents I receive have many of the same formatting errors: Inconsistent fonts and font sizes, different paragraph justifications, inconsistent spacing, etc. There are also some debate specific ones like not using Verbatim heading levels consistently, cutting cards using the F10 emphasis style instead of the F9 underline style, and so on. Of course, some of this is due to a lack of familiarity with how to use Verbatim, but some of it is simply because debaters don’t put in the effort to properly format their documents in Verbatim. 

I usually correct some of the formatting errors before I return the cases (usually consisting of applying consistent Verbatim formatting to the cards, e.g. making sure all taglines use the tag format, eliminating ghost tags, and changing all of the document to the same font and spacing), and each time I mention the importance of having consistently formatted documents, I typically get responses like “This is just you,” “Who cares?,” or “No one else is going to see it!” 

On the one hand, there is some truth to these responses. These mistakes shouldn’t really bother me. Most of the time, these documents are being submitted by relatively inexperienced debaters or debaters from programs without a lot of resources. I am also an anomaly. I am the primary editor for the Victory Briefs topic briefs and ever since Jake Nebel taught how to use pandoc and exposed me to LaTeX to format the briefs (which I think look quite professional), I have become obsessed with formatting. Now, I format many documents, including my syllabus, using https://www.overleaf.com/, a cloud-based LaTeX editor that makes documents look all scientific and professional. These are not the traits of a normal person who probably cares far less about the importance of well formatted documents than I (although many people who go into academia, particularly in the STEM fields, are likely more familiar and comfortable with LaTeX than I am). 

On the other hand, I do think that formatting matters, even if not to the extent that I care about it. Almost every successful debater or team that I can think of in recent years and in every event has beautiful, well formatted documents disclosed on the wiki. While certainly correlation and not causation, I think there is something to the idea that good debaters tend to have good documents, something I hope to explore a bit more in this essay. 

The rest of this diatribe is dedicated to forwarding three arguments for why debaters, including traditional debaters, should care about their document formatting and why coaches should spend a little extra effort in impressing on students the importance of clear and consistent formatting. I term these the readability, respect, and reward arguments. 

I suspect that there won’t be a strong argument in the negative. There probably aren’t people saying “Consistent formatting is bad!” Rather, I suspect that it’s mostly inertia and the fact that students, especially those in traditional circuits, are not motivated yet by the importance of formatting. I hope to make these concerns more salient and to provide reasons that motivate debaters to put in just a little extra effort to make their documents just a little better looking. 

But before I jump into reasons why I think it matters in debate, I’m going to take a brief detour talking about the class I teach and why I’ve started to feel so strongly about formatting. 

Teaching

Each semester that I teach my college course COJO 2095: Persuasive Argumentation, I have to grade final papers where my students get to pick basically any topic and write a paper defending some position on that topic. Some of these papers end up being very well-written polemics or argumentative essays; most of these papers end up being fairly strong illustrations of the problems in American education that produce students who cannot write. 

However, one of the things that stands out to me about essays is how they follow basic formatting guidelines or, more accurately, how poorly many of these papers follow basic formatting guidelines. Like most submissions in academia, the paper should be submitted in a 12-point font, Times New Roman, double-spaced Word document with 1-inch margins (I personally hate double-spaced but that’s a rant for a different time). 

Yet so many of the papers I receive have very obvious formatting errors. Here are just a few of the formatting mistakes I’ve seen in recent submissions: 

• Wrong font
• Wrong font size
• Multiple fonts 
• Multiple font sizes 
• Multiple different types of paragraph spacing
• Extra lines in between paragraphs
• Weird paragraph justifications
• Different paper margins

I’m sure there are other mistakes I’ve seen, but these tend to be the most common and I see most of these mistakes each semester. 

The thing that tends to bother me the most is that most of these mistakes can be corrected with just a few simple clicks. It takes no longer than 15 minutes to clean up a document before submitting it (although with the number of submissions that take place between 11:50 p.m. and 11:59 p.m., maybe 15 minutes is more than the average student can afford to spare). This is especially frustrating since they submit both a prospectus (their pitch for the subject area they would like to write about for the final paper) and an annotated bibliography (a list of sources, citations, and explanations of the sources that help the reader understand) earlier in the semester and I provide feedback on those papers especially regarding the formatting. Yes, I know that while important, feedback is often ignored by students, but still. 

Why did this bother me so much? At first, I actually didn’t have an easy answer. It just did. After all, I am one of those people who really appreciates things like aesthetically pleasing data, so maybe this is just an irrational aesthetic preference of mine.

But when I thought about it a bit more, I came up with two reasons why the lack of proper formatting bothers me so much. 

First, it just seemed to show utter disregard for the instructions. The assignment rubric clearly stated what the formatting guidelines were. The inability to follow even the most basic parts of the assignment guidelines just shows, at best, laziness, at worst, disrespect (though I suspect it was far more the former than the latter). 

Second, it showed me that students didn’t care about their work. And if they don’t care about their work, why should I? If my students couldn’t be bothered to spend those extra 15 minutes to make sure their final submission (mind you, it was the final in the class worth nearly 20% of their final grade) looked clean and professional, it signals to me that they don’t take pride in their work. It signals to me that they don’t care about their work being taken seriously by others because they don’t think it’s even worth taking seriously themselves. 

“…it showed me that students didn’t care about their work. And if they don’t care about their work, why should I?”

Of course, these are likely overreactions on my part. I am almost certainly attributing some degree of malice or negligence where none exists. I am certain most of these students do work very hard on their final submissions (even if mostly just during the week before its due, a poor practice I might add even if it's one I’m also habitually guilty of myself). And, as I noted above, I am definitely an anomaly when it comes to these concerns. 

Yet I do not think I am alone in at least thinking that formatting matters. There are reasons why academics follow standardized citation and formatting styles like MLA, APA, and Chicago. Imagine a professor submitting a journal article with 3 different citation styles, 11 different fonts, and inconsistent paragraph spacing. I doubt many people in academia would take it very seriously. And, despite criticisms, I think there are good reasons for that. Here are a few that I’ve seen:

First, consistency matters. Having a consistent set of formatting guidelines avoids confusion between articles. Instead of having multiple different styles in the same paper, the paper follows its own rules which makes it easier to read. This is especially important when instructors are grading dozens of papers a semester. 

Second, visuals matter. I think it’s often the case that people try to deny this fact, but visuals clearly matter when it comes to how the reader perceives information. If the document does not look professional, it should not be a surprise when the reader does not take the information seriously. Sloppy or inconsistent formatting reflects poorly on your ability to get the details right which clouds a reader’s judgment of the content of the paper. 

Third, content matters. This may seem counterintuitive, but I actually think that following basic formatting guidelines actually allows you to focus more on the content. Once you understand the academic standards required, it allows you to focus more on the content because you are not as distracted with questions about how to organize and format your paper. 

Of course, debate is not academia. For one, you don’t submit debate cases for a grade like you might a school essay. For another, it’s not like these debate cases are getting published in a journal. However, I still believe that formatting matters when constructing debate cases even if not as much as in school. 

Here, I forward three arguments—readability, respect, and reward—in favor of having well formatted debate cases. 

Readability

The first argument is about why formatting should matter directly to debaters. Several studies have shown that numerous aspects of formatting including font type, font size, paragraph style, and leading, all affect readability on a computer screen. Inconsistent formatting tends to trip up debaters who might stumble or pause when switching between differently formatted parts of the case. 

This is important. Clear communication is one of the skills this activity seeks to impart on its participants and it’s also important to winning debate rounds. All else equal, judges are likely to vote for a debater that sounds more polished and practiced than a debater who is prone to verbal stumbles in their speech. Having more consistently formatted documents helps the formatting blend into the background, allowing you to focus on the message you’re trying to communicate. 

That being said, there is an inherent weakness to these types of altruistic arguments which is that a skeptical reader simply might not be motivated by them. “I can read it well enough” or “You just get used to it” are both common responses to this view. 

Yet the evidence that readability matters is difficult to deny. Inconsistent formatting empirically does decrease readability. Your brain has to spend precious and limited cognitive energy deciphering new text. Imagine if the New York Times or the book you were reading had different fonts and font sizes—it would be distracting! It is important to keep things professionally and consistently formatted as it decreases those reading distractions and makes it easier to focus on the words themselves and not what the words look like. 

There is a reason why website designers fret obsessively over details like the font, white space, color, and navigation—it all affects readability. There’s even evidence that different fonts affect the rate of information retention. Similarly, debaters should be sensitive to the way they design their cases. Are you using the right font, using a paragraph spacing that you can read, and using a font size that you can read? All of these affect readability and thus your ability to clearly communicate to judges. It becomes especially pronounced when it comes to organization. I often see debaters who lose their place when reading through a document with poor consistency in their document outlines. Proper and consistent formatting can solve this. 

Respect

The second is about why formatting should matter indirectly to debaters. This is probably what I take to be the most important argument in favor of formatting cases. Consistent and professional formatting lends credibility and legitimacy to your work and shows that you speak the language of debate. It shows that you respect the activity of debate and take pride in the research and preparation you’ve done. These documents garner respect from both judges and opponents. 

“I believe that the perception of evidence quality based on formatting matters greatly”

I believe that the perception of evidence quality based on formatting matters greatly. The impression you leave on a judge starts from when the email chain is first started. Every circuit judge has experienced the pain of someone forgetting to “Reply All” on an email chain or a debater messing up the email chain by typing the wrong email address (something that Joanne Park and I discussed at length this year during an elective at VBI). Even if they do not admit it aloud, judges know that when a debate round starts with technical difficulties concerning the email chain, the round is likely going to be a round between inexperienced debaters. They expect that the round will be worse than it actually is. That’s why it’s so important to start off the debate by getting the basics right, such as setting up the email chain properly. You want to make a good first impression on the judge because of the power of the first impression bias. 

The “first impression bias” is a limitation in human information processing which causes us to make quick and incomplete observations about others based on the first information they are exposed to and that biases their ability to evaluate subsequent information. This bias is well-documented and has implications for a wide number of fields. As Nobel Laureate and personal hero of mine Daniel Kahnemen describes it, “Your first impression of a thing sets up your subsequent beliefs.” 

The first impression bias is really two biases at play here. First is the halo effect, where “an initial positive judgment about a person unconsciously colors the perception of the individual as a whole.” Second is confirmation bias, where we seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to our existing beliefs. You might have heard of these terms before, but I do want to emphasize just how important it is to help understand why I take the perception argument so seriously. 

If the judge thinks you’re a novice, inexperienced, or just bad at debate from the start, that will cloud their judgment of the entire round. While I am unaware of any studies specifically in the context of debate that substantiates it, I would not be at all surprised if it turned out that things like email chain mistakes correlated with lower speaker points and maybe even win rates (although I’m more doubtful about the latter). Regardless, I feel fairly confident in saying that such impressions do matter. 

Document formatting is often the second thing that makes an impression on the judge. Before you give your first affirmative speech, the judge will often have opened the document to follow along. If the judge sees a poorly formatted Verbatim document with inconsistent heading styles or poorly formatted cards (or worse, a non-Verbatim document, Google Doc link, or PDF), that also immediately signals to the judge, “Hey, I am not an experienced debater.” That could easily start you off with lower credibility with your opponent and could leave a poor first impression. The judge might subsequently interpret arguments you make in a less favorable light and be less sympathetic to arguments you make in a round. 

"If the judge sees a poorly formatted Verbatim document… That could easily start you off with lower credibility…"

From my own perspective, I know this to be true, even when I do my best to actively suppress these biases. Whenever I’m judging a debate, whether it’s a local LD debate, a college policy debate, or a PF debate in China, I am consciously and subconsciously making judgments about the quality of the debaters. I’m already asking myself questions like, “Is this going to be a good round” or “Which debater is likely to win.” The answers to these questions are influenced by a myriad of variables, but one of the variables with the most weight to me is document formatting. I feel like I can reasonably predict the quality of a round based simply on the formatting of the 1AC document. 

Whenever I open up an email chain and I see a document with inconsistent or sloppy formatting, I immediately associate that with a novice or JV debater because almost all novice and JV debaters have messy documents. But that association isn’t the one that you want to give to the judge, especially not at first. That association caps the level of skill the judge thinks you’re capable of and it also makes them less likely to take your arguments seriously (or at least less likely to extend charity to your arguments). 

“…effort put into making a document well formatted concretely expresses that you care and put in just a little extra work to make your work more presentable.”

Why is this the case? Most obviously, it’s because most of the best debaters have well formatted cases and many novice or JV debaters have poorly formatted cases, so the relationship is easy to draw. Perhaps less obviously is because that effort put into making a document well formatted concretely expresses that you care and put in just a little extra work to make your work more presentable. 

When I see a document with poor formatting, it signals to me that the debater isn’t detail-oriented and that spills over into how I perceive the quality of the evidence itself. If the evidence isn’t properly formatted, what other details are being overlooked?

In short, the quality of the document is often taken as a proxy for the quality of a debater. While false (as many good debaters have bad documents and many bad debaters have good documents), it is nonetheless how us biased and flawed humans make decisions. Poorly formatted documents convey inexperience; well formatted documents convey experience. 

“…the quality of the document is often taken as a proxy for the quality of a debater.”

I admit this will not be the most persuasive to many local/traditional debaters who do not regularly use email chains (basically just a fancy way of having debaters, and sometimes judges, exchange evidence/cases being read in the debate through email, typically by attaching Word documents to the emails) while debating. 

However, I do believe this still applies because email exchanges or other sharing of evidence is required by the NSDA and still often occurs. For example, the first line of the “NSDA LD, PF, and Policy Debate Evidence Rules - Guide for Judges” document says, “Scenario: A debater or judge asks to see something read and/or the original source of something read. Expectation: The opposing debater should provide this information promptly.” Notice this is applicable for LD, not just policy as some may assume, and it is pretty clear in the requirements to share evidence. This is reaffirmed in the NSDA’s “High School Unified Manual” on page 30 when it states, “Availability of evidence. 1. In all debate events, for reference, any material (evidence, cases, written citations, etc.) that is presented during the round must be made available to the opponent and/or judge if requested. When requested, the original source or copy of the relevant (as outlined in 7.1.F.2.) pages of evidence read in the round must be available to the opponent in a timely fashion during the round and/or judge at the conclusion of the round.” 

So even if the judge never sees any evidence requested, your opponent might, which leads me to the second component of the perception argument: Well formatted evidence matters in making opponent’s treat you as a threat. When opponents see well formatted documents or evidence, that affects how they will debate. 

I recently had a coaches meeting with some of the other coaches at Apple Valley High School about the importance of formatting. As Nick Smith, Jacob Nails, and I were deciding on what the new standards would be for the formatting of Apple Valley LD cases (we previously lacked any real standardization), Nails and I were commenting on some of the bad cards we’ve cut in the past. As we were trading war stories about some of the worst cards that we’ve ever cut, we both remarked that many of our bad cards managed to carry the day because their formatting lent our cards (unjustified) credibility. 

But that credibility doesn’t just matter to the judge, it matters to your opponent. Opponents are more likely to give your arguments and evidence more credence than they deserve if those arguments are presented in a well formatted document. People give well formatted documents that credence because it is associated with other high-quality materials like journal articles. Proper formatting lends you credibility in the eyes of both your opponent and your judge. And when your opponent treats you like a threat, they tend to perform worse. Studies have shown that in domains like tennis or chess, treating your opponents as better than you makes you perform worse. If your documents look professional and serious, your opponents might actually debate worse than usual, a competitive advantage that’s hard to turn down. 

“Well formatted and well organized documents told me that my opponents… had clearly spent a lot of time preparing their arguments which meant they had probably thought through more aspects of the debate, cut more cards on the issue, and found better evidence than I had.”

Anecdotally, I felt this a lot when I was a relatively inexperienced debater starting off in college policy. Whenever we faced a team with documents as poorly formatted as mine were (my college policy docs from my first year of competition were horrendous to look at), I knew it was going to be an evenly matched round. However, whenever we faced a team with well formatted documents, I immediately became nervous. Well formatted and well organized documents told me that my opponents were serious threats. It signaled that they had clearly spent a lot of time preparing their arguments which meant they had probably thought through more aspects of the debate, cut more cards on the issue, and found better evidence than I had. Maybe none of that is true, but I can say that I lost much more frequently to teams with well formatted docs than to teams without them. It’s hard to say which way, if any, the causation runs—does good formatting make good debaters or do good debaters use good formatting (or is all merely correlation), but the connection exists and it is something you should try to exploit for your own benefit. 

In other words, well formatted documents give you a (slight) competitive edge. It probably won’t be directly responsible for winning a lot of rounds, but it almost certainly matters at the margins and when debate is a game of inches not miles, those margins might matter more than you think. 

Reward

Finally, and this is likely the most contentious and least generalizable argument, I think that there is something rewarding about producing a well formatted file. I think debaters should take more pride in their work, even if the quality of said work isn’t objectively great. 

Debate is hard. The task of cutting cards itself is already impressive. Middle schoolers and high schoolers are being asked to process information at the level of college students. As I ranted about for a while in my Current Affairs article on the importance of debate, information processing and research is hard, even for college kids. Taking a journal article and distilling down the central idea (something that the average American adult has difficulty doing given low literacy rates in the U.S.) into something readable in a competitive debate round is actually no small feat. 

You should take pride in this! You should feel proud to cut a card! For me, I feel rewarded when I cut a good file. (Of course, I feel even more rewarded when those files can help debaters win rounds.) There’s something just so satisfying about producing a well formatted file. I think you should feel good about yourself when you produce a good life. I think you should feel proud of the work you’ve done, and formatting both signals that pride as well as induces it. Similar to how artists feel good about producing something aesthetically pleasing, I think you should feel good about producing a quality file. 

Conclusion

I think that formatting reflects effort and pride. It shows that you care about the work you’ve done. It shows that you pay attention to the details. It shows that you are willing to go the extra two steps and make your documents look professional. It shows you respect the discipline, can speak the language of debate, and care about the quality of your work. It signals to both yourself and others that the work you’ve done is quality work. 

I do not think there is a lot of value in making documents follow a particular formatting style. Just like I think it’s silly that publishers waste a million hours on arbitrary style guides, I think it’s silly to make everyone use a particular font or citation style. Just like I don’t have a strong preference as to whether we drive on the right or left side of the road, I don’t have a strong preference for any particular style. But I do have a preference that we agree to drive on the same side of the road just like I have a preference that your documents follow its own internal rules. Citation styles should be mostly consistent, you should have consistent heading and organization, and your document should have consistent fonts, font sizes, and spacing. 

Of course, I doubt most people care about this as much as I do. I do admit this preference is somewhat irrational. Even people who produce more aesthetically pleasing debate files than I probably find this diatribe a bit silly. 

Despite the importance of producing organized and formatted files to long-term debate success, I feel like this is one of those subjects that is an unspoken rule of debate. Just like there aren’t great, centralized resources for teaching debaters about email chains, ever-changing disclosure norms, or how to construct a politics file, I don’t think there are enough resources dedicated to teaching some of the basics of debate that more experienced coaches are prone to forget, thanks in part to the curse of knowledge. 

Is doc formatting as important as other things when it comes to improving debate? Definitely not. And usually, debaters do get naturally better at formatting docs as they become more experienced regardless. 

But is this something that matters at least a little that is often not directly discussed? I think so. I think that formatting matters and the fact that other judges and debaters think it matters means it should probably matter to you too. 

---

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Victory Briefs.

Where Are They Now?: Debate Career Pathways

By Peter Zhang, Garrett Chau, Michael Huang, Matthew Liu, Joanne Park, and Ben Waldman

Cover Art by Joanne Park

Introduction

The specter of college and beyond haunts the halls of high school tournaments. Hang around debaters and you'll hear conversations like this:

Debater 1: Do you think you'll go into law?
Debater 2: Nah, these days debaters just go onto finance or consulting.
Debater 1: Oh yeah! I heard someone describe finance as "PF in the real world."
Debater 2: And they all go to…
Debater 1 and Debater 2, in unison: U-Chi-ca-go!

Or maybe something like this:

Debater 1: Framework Cap again huh… do they actually believe in the communism stuff?
Debater 2: Probably not. I mean, half of them end up as business majors.
Debater 1: Really? But I thought debaters were really into liberal arts.
Debater 2: Not policy debaters… maybe LDers?
Debater 1: You think they teach tricks in college?

Well, who's right? Sometimes, it matters. Debaters like to make arguments about "subjectivity" and what happens after leave debate. Unfortunately, case studies and anecdotes only go so far—answering these questions requires more data.

Dataset

So we collected a lot of it. We spent two weeks compiling a database documenting the performance, argument style, and career trajectories of nearly every debater in the 2016 Tournament of Champions.

Here's how we did it.

First, we collected the names, schools, and results of every entry in Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), and Policy directly off Tabroom. Results included the final place, ballots, and speaker points (which were not available in full for policy). In all, we had 438 competitors.

Next, we brought in our previous work on disclosure, adding wiki cites, cites, round reports to the Policy and LD tabs. PF did not have a wiki in 2016. We corrected names in our wiki data as necessary.

Overall, we had wiki information on all but 5 LD debaters (~94.5% disclosure rate) and 1 policy team (~98.7% disclosure rate).

Finally—and this is the hard part—we manually searched for the LinkedIn URL, undergraduate college and major, and industry and employers of every debater. Our Google searches tried to pull information from:

• their LinkedIns, which we found for 329 debaters (about three-quarters).
• Tabroom paradigms, which often mentioned their college and sometimes their major.
• high school, college, and employer websites—creepy but effective.
• social media, which sometimes listed their college, too.

When these didn't work, we used personal connections (lots of texting/calling) to fill the gaps. When we still couldn't find anything, we marked the cell as "N/A." If you have information we're missing or got wrong, please reach out!

All in all, we were missing:

• 37 colleges;
• 56 majors;
• 98 industries; and
• 100 employers.

Some more details. We coded majors as either Business, STEM, Social Science, Liberal Arts, or Interdisciplinary. We also did a rough coding of the industries. Some people worked in multiple industries, so we prioritized the most recent, full-time employer.

Analysis

With the boring stuff out of the way, who's right?

Schools

Here's are the top 10 schools. The most common school is Harvard. A surprising 33 TOC debaters went off to Boston, about 7.5% of them.

But interestingly, Harvard doesn't hold the top spot in any single event. Instead, the next 3 schools—UChicago, UC Berkeley, and UT Austin—are the top school for one event each. Can you guess which is which?

LD - UT Austin: LD is popular in Texas!

PF - UChicago: It is a debate school!

Policy - UC Berkeley: A smashing policy debate program!

The other six are Stanford, Columbia (prefers LD), Duke (prefers PF), UMich, Northwestern, and Emory (prefers policy).

For all the tiger parents out there: debate looks pretty good for your children's college prospects!

Majors

The most common field is social science, closely followed by STEM. Policy debaters have a bias towards the liberal arts. PFers love business. LDers prefer STEM and stay away from double or triple majors.

The most common major, by a substantial margin, is economics. After that is computer science, political science, and philosophy. We probably underestimated the popularity of governance-related majors because they went by so many names. Either way, debaters are much more likely to study social sciences, which comprise less than 10% of bachelor's degrees nationally.

Industries

Lo and behold! Debaters are financiers and consultants. Exactly 100 work in those two fields, or roughly 24% of TOC attendees. But, as the social studies teachers say, debaters do love studying law as well, with 39 budding lawyers, and many more young politicians and policy analysts.

Since we categorized full-time debate coaches as educators, a whole lot work in education. Research, too. But there were differences between events:

• Policy debaters have the least affinity for consulting and finance.
• LDers tend to go into tech—software engineering and machine learning—at higher rates.
• PFers don't come back to coach very often, probably because of the sheer size of their event.

Now, everyone is unique, but some people have more unique careers than others. The rarest industry awards go to…

1. PF's Akshat Chowksey, somehow the only person in product management.
2. LD's Louisa Melcher, working in the art industry.
3. Policy's Spencer Brents, a part-time aviation instructor.
4. PF's Josie Slovut, who works in forestry.
5. Policy's Dan Bannister, 2nd Lieutenant and Logistics Officer in the United States Marine Corps.

The Big Threes

Finance and consulting also boast the biggest employers, but probably only because these are concentrated industries. The Big Three—McKinsey, Bain, and BCG (MBB)—dominate. Take a look:

A quick back-of-the-envelope-calculation. Let's assume that Bain, McKinsey, and BCG each take 500 associates every year. In 2016, there were 10 million full-time students, so let's assume 3 million for the freshman class.

The overall college to MBB rate is 0.05%. The rate for TOC debaters is 18/438, or about 2%. TOC debaters are at least 400 times more likely to work at MBB than the average college student!

A similar story is true for finance, where 17/438 TOC debaters work at Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, or Goldman Sachs, which take around 1,000 interns a summer.

Now, here's the cool part. We counted the number of cites that had the word "Cap."" People who read the Cap K at least once were half as likely to go into finance. Wow!

Of course, this is probably not causal. The types of debaters who read the Cap K just happen to not like finance as much.

All Together Now

Putting it all together, here's a diagram relating event to undergraduate field of study and industry. Play around with it!

Conclusion

The overall picture: TOC debaters tend to go to prestigious schools. They prefer to study social science, although the details vary by event. Although finance and consulting are indeed popular, debaters do have a love for law, public policy, and politics. Finally, argument style does seem to be related to choice of career—the way you debate might matter.

Thanks for reading! Please feel free to view our code and contact us if you competed in the 2016 TOC and would like to see the data. If you have a cool idea or question, reach out to Peter on Facebook!

***An earlier version of this article included full, public access to our data. Due to privacy concerns, we have since removed that from our article.

Health and Debate: Part I by Lawrence Zhou

Lawrence Zhou is a graduate assistant at the University of Wyoming, head coach of Team Wyoming, and an assistant coach at Apple Valley High School. He was formerly the Director of Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Victory Briefs.

We often hear about the importance of staying healthy during debate tournaments but we don't always understand why. In Part I of this series, Lawrence Zhou will cover precisely why it is so important to stay healthy during debate tournaments. In Part II, Joanne Park will elaborate on some practical tips on staying healthy while debating.

---

The Netflix miniseries “The Queen’s Gambit” was an unexpected hit that sparked a huge surge of interest in chess: Chess sets and accessories were sold out for weeks, more women were inspired to take up chess, and online chess sites experienced massive upticks in sign ups. Of course, part of the boom was driven by the pandemic. Stuck at home with nothing to do, why not take up chess? What people often don’t realize about chess is just how physically demanding it is to play, at least at the higher levels. 

Take a second to guess: How many calories do you think a chess grandmaster burns a day at a chess tournament? Keep in mind that the FDA recommends that the average person consume 2,000 calories a day (a number that is probably too low) and a 154-pound person can burn 220-295 calories for each 30 minutes of playing tennis (which works out to about 600 calories an hour). 

What’s your guess? A couple hundred calories? Maybe like 2,000 calories? 

Well, whatever your guess is, it’s probably too low. According to Robert Sapolsky, a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford, a chess grandmaster can burn about 6,000 calories a day just from playing chess. That means they can lose two pounds per day of playing chess. 

Wait, how is that possible? A grandmaster might be playing a game that lasts for hours, but they are hardly moving (beyond extending the arms every so often to move a piece) and are seated for most of the time. 

Yet, the evidence is pretty overwhelming. ESPN reporter Aishwarya Kumar notes, “The 1984 World Chess Championship was called off after five months and 48 games because defending champion Anatoly Karpov had lost 22 pounds.” The same article notes that top chess players like Magnus Carlsen, the current world No. 1-ranked chess player and defending world champion; Fabiano Caruana, the current world No. 2-ranked chess player; and Viswanathan Anand, a five-time world champion, all maintain rigorous workout routines to keep their edge during strenuous chess tournaments. 

While the phenomenon is counterintuitive, there’s a good physiological explanation for it. Despite representing only around 2% of body weight, the brain likely “accounts for about 20% of the oxygen and, hence, calories consumed by the body.” And “The brain—unlike any other part of the body—runs exclusively on the sugar glucose, and strenuous cognitive activities require more glucose than simple ones.” Or, in other words, the more you think, the more calories you burn. When you feel tired after a long day at school, it’s because doing a lot of mental tasks can zap your mental energy (but please don’t take this as an effective substitute for weight loss or exercise). That’s probably why things like self-control are limited—it’s not because there is some ethereal well of “willpower” that you draw from—it’s because self-control, like all mental processes, requires physical energy and the body is simply “limited in its ability to supply the brain with sufficient energy to fuel mental processes.” 

But it’s not just the increase in cognitively strenuous tasks that’s driving the massive spike in calories burned. As Kumar explains in an NPR interview, “So the brain obviously is functioning at a much higher level, but we should understand that the brain alone is not causing the weight loss. The brain's metabolism is causing for different reaction to occur in your body, like increased stress, like loss of appetite, like disturbed sleep patterns. And because of all of these different factors that the brain is setting off - that is the reason they're losing weight.” In particular, that stress can cause a “cascade of physiological changes, such as an increased heart rate and oxygen intake, which would also cause you to use more energy.” 

At this point, it should be obvious where we’re going with this. If the phrases “increased stress,” “disturbed sleep patterns,” and “cognitively strenuous tasks” aren’t setting off alarm bells in your head, you clearly haven’t been to a debate tournament (or, at least, not an in-person debate tournament which can’t return soon enough). 

Debate tournaments are exhausting, even online ones. Debaters are often up bright and early, suffering from insufficient sleep, in a stressful environment, engaging with difficult and complex ideals, and usually not eating particularly well. These tournaments usually last several days where debaters often stay up doing additional research or hanging out with friends, depriving them of desperately needed sleep. And during the day, debaters are often juggling many different mental tasks at once while consuming too much caffeine and eating junk food. 

Even just the public speaking aspect is draining. As public speaking experts and coaches argue, “You are in constant motion, shaking off nervous energy, gesturing to make a point and often walking to help occupy the stage. Public speaking is as physical as it is verbal.” You can literally burn calories just by talking. And in heated debate rounds, debaters often make liberal use of wild hand gestures. That also burns calories! For example, it is estimated that Trump burns between 120 and 160 calories just from gesticulating during a 45-minute stump speech. 

So now when people say that debate isn’t a sport, they may be technically correct, but debate is more akin to a sport than they might initially think. 

While we strongly doubt that debaters are anywhere close to burning 6,000 calories a day like a chess grandmaster, we suspect (with good evidence) that debaters are burning more calories and putting more wear and tear on their bodies than they might suspect. Of course, high school students are usually a bit more resilient and seem to have more energy, but that does not make them immune from the effects of debate tournaments. 

In an activity where competitive success is often valued above mental and physical health, it’s important to have a discussion about physical and mental health, the norms around them, and how you can stay healthy during debate tournaments. Just like experts recommend that you should eat well, exercise, and rest before cognitively taxing activities like a chess tournament or even the SAT, we will recommend something similar.

In Part II, Joanne Park will cover some practical pieces of advice for staying healthy both in and out of debate rounds.

Miscellaneous Musings - NSDA Nationals 2021 Edition

Lawrence Zhou was the 2014 NSDA National Champion. He now works as an assistant coach for The Harker School and is the Director of Publishing and Lincoln-Douglas Debate at the Victory Briefs Institute.

The Opinions Expressed In This Post Are Those of the Author And Not Necessarily Those Of Victory Briefs.

---

I penned an article like this at Nationals in 2018 and in 2020 and many thoughts I have had since 2018 remain like my complaints about the lack of power matching and the relatively low judging quality. I will reiterate some of those thoughts below with some updates but I will also try and add a few original contributions to this discourse about the NSDA National Tournament. 

Before I jump into my specific thoughts about the tournament itself, I offer a brief observation about the value of even penning this article. I noted in my 2018 essay that writing these posts served “both a cathartic act for me, but also a sincere attempt to open-up conversations about how to improve this tournament for the competitors and coaches.” The former is still true (I have many unsolicited thoughts about this tournament to this day); the latter no longer serves as a satisfactory justification. Netizens tend to live in filter bubbles of one sort or another. They tend to coalesce around communities and norms that share their values and prior beliefs. Debaters are no different; we tend to congregate and associate with those that come from the same districts or those that see debate through a similar ideological lens. People involved in the “national circuit” are often (rightly) criticized for committing a sort of “debate flight” from more local and traditional circuits, dragging away precious and limited debate resources from a local district and investing them in a comparatively well-funded national circuit. People involved in more local and traditional circuits often view “national circuit” programs as detrimental to some of the communication aspects of debate and mostly comprised of elite and wealthy private schools. There is sometimes a perception that those in the “national circuit” look down upon traditional leagues with a sense of snobbery. Truthfully, I don’t think these are invalid criticisms. 

Similarly, I think many in the “national circuit” view traditional debate as boring and lacking robust incentives to encourage deep learning. There is some sense that once you’ve learned the basics of more traditional-style Lincoln-Douglas debate, that everything else is mostly just the same, with nothing new or exciting to keep the debates interesting. It is commonplace for debaters with more “national circuit” experience to roll into a traditional tournament thinking themselves superior and achieving reasonable success with little preparation because of their background in more technical forms of debate. Truthfully, I can see where some of these debaters are coming from (although the sort of snobbery and elitism among “national circuit” debaters is obviously wrong and there needs to be some conversation about reducing such perceptions and expressions within the community), as I’ve personally found that I sometimes get bored of debating in more traditional circuits (I once did public forum at a local tournament because I simply got so tired of debating in Lincoln-Douglas). 

Yet the issue is less the underlying differences between the various styles of debate or even the diverging paradigmatic assumptions underlying each view of debate. Rather, the issue, to me, is the increasing divide between such communities, where the differences between styles of debate are accentuated more than the commonalities. Both styles, while distinct in form, are premised on the value of research, communication, and critical thinking. These are all values that proponents of each style of debate are likely to agree unifies an otherwise strange collection of people who devote their free time and weekends to clashing over philosophy, politics, and current events. Personally, I view both styles of debate as valuable; one training students in a hyper-insular game that inculcates a variety of skills that can be valuable outside of mere public speaking, the other training students in forms of rhetoric that can be easily exported to the real world. And while both styles pursue different ends, they are all connected by their interest in training students to be better citizens and activists. 

Thus, while I suspect that this article will never find its way to a critical mass of traditional enclaves of debate (and, even if it did, I suspect many would refuse to read this essay on the grounds of it disseminating “national circuit” propaganda), I still think there is some value in writing such posts. It only takes a few coaches with the right connections to push for some change—or at least a conversation—and while it’s unlikely this particular post will really convince anyone of anything, offering the olive branch cannot hurt. 

The following are my own opinions about the 2021 NSDA National Tournament and while some will almost certainly only find support amongst community members who already ideologically align with me on a myriad of issues, I hope that this article can at least raise a few questions about best practices and Lincoln-Douglas debate as a whole. 

1. Congrats! 

As always, this post will open with the typical salvo of felicitations for those that performed well at this year’s tournament. Congratulations to Katie Jack of George Washington HS in CO for winning NSDA Nationals and to Catherine Liu of Washington HS in SD for placing second and also placing as the 13th speaker. 

Congratulations to everyone that broke! I believe there were 113 breaks (but I can’t count, so this could be incorrect) out of a field of 368 debaters, the largest ever Lincoln-Douglas debate pool. And like last year, the state of Ohio had an incredible showing, with multiple debaters in the top 14. Additionally, congratulations to Cobin Szymanski from Saint Michael-Albertville High School for winning NSDA student of the year. 

As best as I can tell, this is the first time that four non-dudes were in semifinals of NSDA Nationals! This continues on a trend from last year where both finalists were also non-dudes! While equity in debate still has a long way to go (several papers, including academic ones, confirm that there is a statistically significant gender gap, the general academic literature suggests that a gender credibility gap still exists especially in public speaking activities where masuline voices are preferred, and popular media has even written about #MeToo in debate), this suggests some remarkable progress when just a decade or two ago, having parity in gender representation in even the top 14 was difficult to come by. It was pretty cool judging multiple elimination rounds where I judged zero dudes! While this does align with general progress in terms of moving towards real equity, I wonder if online debate plays some part in this. The fact that the winning public forum team was also two non-dudes lends further credence to this hypothesis. Does the online debate format moderate gender differences in some form or fashion? I’d be curious to see studies on online debate and gender representation. 

Finally, congratulations to my former high school Linda Shipley for winning the Ralph E. Carey Award for Distinguished Career Service, an award given to the chair whose career in district leadership exemplifies the role! Given that she is formally retiring from high school speech and debate coaching this year, it made me very happy to see her earn a prestigious award and coach a student to the top eight of Lincoln-Douglas (one of countless students she has coached into late elimination rounds at NSDA Nationals)! Without Shipley, I would have never won NSDA Nationals, never stayed in debate for years, and never become the person that I am. 

2. Farewell to seniors

A serious omission from last year’s post concerned graduating debaters. The deprivation of a true high school graduation experience has been well-documented and the deprivation of a proper send off for graduating seniors in debate, particularly those who have been involved with this activity for a majority of their high school journey, is no less tragic in its own right. There is something special about attending one’s final NSDA National Tournament in a distant city. Maybe it’s fact that occurs following graduation, the fact that it represents the culmination of years of work, or maybe the fact that it might be the first sense of freedom away from watchful parental supervision, a prelude to college—regardless of the specific reason, there is a feeling difficult to encapsulate in writing about the experience of attending one’s last NSDA Nationals in-person, a feeling that will be unjustly denied to so many graduating seniors who had to endure over a year of e-debate. 

Former NSDA National Champion Ishan Bhatt expressed something similar in a recent Facebook post in the High School LD Debate group when he wrote “Be kind to the seniors. I know zoom debate is soul crushing ... I think we should have a conversation to know what we’re doing beforehand to celebrate a kickass group of debaters who have managed to keep this community running despite the challenges of this year.” I couldn't agree more. There is something that each of us can do to attempt to remedy the situation. We should celebrate all graduating seniors regardless of their trophy count. Be thankful for the legacy they’ve left behind, whether they were a fearless team captain that led a large squad to victory or someone who never took debate that seriously but found a small community within debate. Celebrate the accomplishments of those who endured this season, express gratitude for those that prevented squads from going under, and sympathize for those who never got their final farewell from debate. 

To graduating seniors reading this post (If you are, what are doing? You should definitely go out and enjoy your summer before college! If you’re vaccinated, of course!), I suspect you’re only reading this because you have immense appreciation for this activity. Debate can oftentimes seem unfulfilling. It can feel like hard work goes unrewarded, that success is fleeting, and that the time you put into this activity doesn’t match one-to-one with what you got out of it. Yet, if you still find value in this activity, if you still love debate, consider sticking around. Debate works because those who leave give back, even just a little. Debate only survives because of generous alumni who return and give their time, energy, and money to help programs, judge tournaments, and mentor others. I know that I can never easily repay those college students who returned weekend after weekend to little pay and even less glory who judged me, offered me advice, and gave the debate community a desperately needed sense of continuity and community. 

And even if your competitive record never seemed impressive, even if you never championed a tournament, even if you never qualified to NSDA Nationals, you should still consider it. Some of the best coaches and mentors are those that themselves lacked the best records on paper. (In fact, a case could be made that a desire to see students do better than you ever did is an unmatched motivator.) You don’t need trophies to coach. All you need is a willingness to learn and grow yourself, a dedication to helping students improve to the best of their ability, and a love for this activity. 

3. Bad topics are bad :( 

The same heading as last year; the same problem. Jacob Nails, Chris Theis, and I have reflected on this topic and while we think that the overall slate of topics this year has generally improved (in particular, I found the March/April topic concerning universal childcare to be an excellent one to research), there often arises a problem with poor topics at the NSDA National Tournament. 

This complaint might deserve its own section, but we also discussed how the lack of ranked choice voting (now in popular discussion because of the NYC mayoral race) when voting for topics within slots makes vote splitting more likely. While this topic won with 39% of the coach vote and 39% of the student vote, that masks the fact that the two other potential topics (one concerning sin taxes and the other about wealth taxes) were so similar thematically that they likely split the vote between them, and, without some good way to coordinate on which tax topic was best, it was likely the case that the majority of the debate community preferred a tax topic but ended up with this topic instead. While ranked choice voting cannot fully eliminate the spoiler effect, it can do a decent job at mitigating it and preventing the outcome where the majority of the debate community received a topic they did not prefer. 

Returning to problems with this topic specifically, I’ve lamented about many of these concerns in my topic analysis essay from the Victory Briefs. In that essay, I mostly made predictions I hoped would not come to fruition and while some did not, many I made did come to be. Judging rounds on the LD topic only confirmed my prior suspicions. Here is a brief summary of some of the concerns I raised in my topic analysis and how they played out in actuality. 

First, the topic was absurdly aff-biased. Very few people thought that the resolution was false. Negatives that succeeded on this topic did so by exploiting technical concessions by the affirmative, warping arguments that shouldn’t have pertained to the truth or falsity of the resolution into voting issues, and taking advantage of poorly constructed affirmative cases. Nothing about the substance of the negative’s arguments gave good reason to think the resolution was false. This, I think, reflects a common problem with taking topics that seem balanced because there are huge swaths of the public that disagree with something and thinking that translates into equitable ground given the academic nature of the topic. To me, this topic was on par with expecting students to debate about the existence of climate change. While there is much public disagreement about the existence or severity of climate change, the scientific consensus strongly implies that there is no real debate to be had about whether climate change exists or not. 

This was not my own view. One post in the r/lincolndouglas subreddit was titled “Is anyone else really struggling with neg for NSDA nats????” and the post said “I feel like there’s so little ground that’s not a fallacy or outweighed by the Aff, and I’m losing my mind rewriting my cases. I don’t even want help or anything; I’m just wondering if anyone else relates :/” I definitely relate. Despite the fact that I voted negative in multiple rounds throughout the tournament (I think I voted negative in two out of the three rounds I judged, including two rounds with the eventual finalists), those were mostly due to technical concessions or very obvious skill imbalances. In any debate where the debaters had approximate parity in skill or there were no mistakes, the affirmative tended to win. 

Second, the topic did not facilitate real values debate. I had originally argued that this topic was promoting the wrong debate. While there is substantial literature about the proper application of first principles—e.g. what precisely constitutes a public health emergency, what criteria should be employed to determine which particular civil liberties could be limited, what guardrails should be in place to prevent the degradation of democratic values, what checks and balances should be erected to prevent abuse, or what procedures should be established to ensure that such limitations are temporary and reversible—that was simply not the topic. The topic is something of a “first principle” whose truth was not substantially affected by any of the prudential questions that often served as the core ground on the topic. It could both be the case that public health emergencies justify limiting civil liberties and that there are strong prudential reasons not to enact such restrictions like concerns about declining trust in medical institutions or concerns about democratic backsliding much in the same way that it could be the case that territorial incursions justify actions in self-defense and that there are strong prudential reasons not to respond like concerns about the fiscal cost of doing so or concerns of unnecessarily escalating the conflict. That such were predictable consequences of any given policy action does not seem to have much bearing on the truth of the resolution. Yet because the negative’s principled arguments were mostly extreme versions of libertarianism that few serious philosophers even consider plausible ethical theories, the negative was forced to rely on making prudential arguments in the hope that, with enough smoke and mirrors, they could twist them into arguments denying the truth of the resolution. Such debates were a pain to adjudicate because it almost seemed like the debaters were debating two distinct resolutions. 

It’s not clear to me if this topic was worse than the previous topic about the intergenerational accumulation of wealth, but it’s also not clear if it was better. Many of the same problems I’ve previously grumbled about remain. Just like how debates on intergenerational wealth devolved into debates about death taxes, debates on this topic devolved into debates about the value of mandatory versus voluntary public health measures which, while obviously a relevant concern in the literature, is not the core debate that this topic was supposed to be about. In fact, I correctly predicted that much of the final round would primarily revolve around the efficacy of either coercive or voluntary public health measures. While an interesting debate, it is just not what I think the topic was attempting to get at. 

4. Online traditional debate is… not great 

Last year, I argued that “Online traditional debate isn’t great but it isn’t terrible either.” On last year’s “Next Off” episode about COVID-19, we also discussed some of the benefits that online debate might bring about including increased participation and more opportunities to attend tournaments nationally. Yet some analysis done by Peter Zhang suggests that, at least for the “national circuit,” not all is rosy. While “more line wolves and smaller teams are competing” and “smaller states have also ramped up participation,” it’s also the case that there “are fewer debaters” that “compete more frequently.” I suspect that for many teams, it’s because “Teams could’ve had a tough time recruiting new debaters. Debaters themselves might have had other priorities in their lives. And, competitors who enjoyed the social aspects of debate may have felt that tournaments were no longer worth it.”  

I suspect, without much empirical backing, that such factors are also at play in traditional circuits. More importantly, I suspect that online debate hasn’t just decreased recruitment and retention, but it’s also decreased the lively atmosphere that keeps debate spirited and alive. For teams that are lucky enough to safely congregate with their teammates on campus, they almost certainly benefit from a morale boost. Something about not being around others to experience the highs and lows of debate tournaments alters the experience. I even had a brief conversation with a competitor prior to a round where the debater expressed some sense of loss for not being able to attend NSDA Nationals in-person. During that conversation, I reflected on some of the elements of NSDA Nationals in-person that stood out to me. I can recall the feeling when you enter the crowded common area, realizing that some of the brightest and best students in the country are mingling in the crowd, the feeling of being so small as you and your squad attempt to search for a power outlet or open seating area, and the near overwhelming sensation of your senses being overwhelmed by all the noise and commotion. Not all of it was pleasant (have you been around so many high schoolers who seemed to either have drowned themselves in cheap body spray or found a new love of water conservation in the form of eschewing showers) but it was quintessentially NSDA Nationals. As the “largest academic competition in the world,” there is simply nothing quite like it. The community of people at NSDA Nationals makes the tournament a unique experience, one that is difficult to replicate. As Serena Mao noted in a recent opinion piece for Vbriefly, “As cliché as it is, arguably the most valuable part of competitive debate is the people we meet along the way. Online, casual interactions must involve intentional texts and calls, meaning small talk with both previous strangers and acquaintances is rare. In person, hundreds of competitors are closely packed onto campus, meaning friends unintentionally bump into each other often (which is how most conversations start). The social aspect of tournaments isn’t just entertaining—whether it’s celebrating over recent wins or ranting about losses, bonding over the emotional rollercoaster of debate is an integral part of the in person experience.” 

Perhaps this is simply me projecting my general fatigue with online debate and online education, but it felt as if many debaters this year were just less interested and invested in debate. Do you all feel the same way? 

5. There is a judging crisis

I am a staunch defender of lay and parent judging. Anyone who has talked with me at camp can attest to this. I frequently defend the value of lay and parent judging because (A) there is immense skill to be derived from learning how to persuade the general public, and (B) this community could not survive without the labor, contributions, and sacrifices of volunteers and parents who fill judging pools that would otherwise go unfilled. Now, perhaps this is a symptom of a deeper problem, i.e. the lack of retention in debate, and perhaps that problem of retention is a serious one that threatens the long-term sustainability of this activity and deserves its own separate conversation about how to remedy the problem (actually paying judges something approximating a living wage would be a good first start). 

But, for now, the conversation needs to revolve around identifying the need for higher quality judging. We can provisionally bracket aside questions about judge retention, pay, and treatment for another time, for such discussions will likely stall quickly absent consensus on the deeper nature of the problem. Instead, I want to focus on making a brief case for higher quality judging specifically at NSDA Nationals. 

I think that debate at higher level competitions like NSDA Nationals needs to reward deep research that can be translated to a wider audience. Right now, it feels as if the incentives of debaters is less to do lots of research in public health ethics, philosophy, or current events and instead to focus on making simple arguments that work in front of a wide range of audiences and to polish their presentation. The amount of framework debates that occurred at this tournament that could be summarized as “life is a prerequisite to rights” and “rights are important to make life meaningful” is a bit too high for my taste. While I think that a myriad of factors can explain the decline in philosophical debate at the upper echelons of competition at this tournament (not least of which is that the topic itself was poorly constructed), I take the quality of judging to be at least one major contributor. I think that the lack of more experienced judges in rounds at NSDA Nationals deflates the value of doing deep and real academic research, especially into more abstract values questions like the one that the resolution is posing. If such research is not rewarded, then little incentive exists to do such research. Instead, the rounds I judged and the livestreams I watched indicated that what was being rewarded was a few salient and emotionally charged examples on both sides, slinging studies about the efficacy of particular public health interventions like mask mandates or mandatory vaccinations, and listing examples of countries that were either affirmative or negative examples about the efficacy or inefficacy of their COVID-19 responses. I have sympathy for such arguments and strategies (especially in light of such a poorly worded debate topic), but I can also lament the fact that Lincoln-Douglas debate at NSDA Nationals often does not reward the type of debate that Lincoln-Douglas was created to promote. 

Independently, it is a generally accepted fact that judges without some debate experience will tend to make decisions that correspond less with the actual arguments made in the round and often correspond with less obvious and predictable factors like random presentation quirks. The fact that the NSDA goes out of its way to put experienced coaches in late elimination rounds demonstrates this. If this is well recognized, then it seems odd that the tournament allows those without prior debate experience to adjudicate rounds that are representing the top debaters in the nation. It seems to devalue some of the work that debaters do. When debaters who do a lot of work and then lose because some judge couldn’t understand some norm of Lincoln-Douglas debate or because they simply incorrectly interpreted an argument, that does some disservice to debaters. Again, it is an important skill in life to recognize that you can’t persuade everyone and debaters need to learn how to persuade those without significant debate experience in the real world, and that’s why I think that local tournaments are so valuable for everyone. However, when we’re talking about the NSDA National Tournament, a tournament that sends so many seniors off into the real world as their last tournament, a tournament that represents the best of the best, we should ask better for our students. 

There is not an obvious solution to this. Perhaps the tournament itself should be more judicious in seeking hired judges. Perhaps the tournament should lower the judging age from two years out to just one year out. Perhaps schools should be required to bring someone that has actually judged debate in the past. But none are easy to implement, all involve money, and there’s simply a limited supply of qualified judges who have better things to do than to spend a week judging debate. Nonetheless, recognizing a problem exists is the first step to potentially fixing it. 

6. Judge paradigms are still bad 

In both last year’s musings and our recent “Next Off” episode, I ranted about the failings of the judge paradigms, writing that “It’s good that the NSDA forces judges to fill in paradigms but these paradigms are pretty much worthless. I’d almost rather we not have them. When I was competing, my coach told me that the paradigms were ‘drink coasters.’” My complaints remain. 

For example, there is simply no good metric for speed. The paradigm asks “What is your preferred rate of delivery?” It then gives you a scale of “1 = Slow conversational style; 9 = Rapid conversation speed.” I have no clue what any of that means. My 9 is not my mom’s 9. My 5 is not my former coach’s 5. This is simply meaningless. 

It also asks “How do you decide the winner of the round?” It gives you a few options including voting for who persuaded the judge more of their position, of who won the key arguments in the round, and who won the most arguments. These are meaningless answers and the last answer should not even be considered to be a defensible view of decision-making in debate. 

Another question asks “How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?” It gives you a scale of “1 = Not necessary; 9 = Always necessary.” What is a 5 on this scale? How does this even begin to capture judges' preference for evidence? Generally, more traditional judges are inclined to say something like “I prefer logic over empirics” or something to that effect. This question doesn’t even help clarify that. 

Because of the way the questions are worded, I often give what appear to be contradictory answers to issues. For example, one question is about what final rebuttals should include (line-by-line analysis, voting issues, or both) and the following question is about whether voting issues are necessary and not necessary. Because I think that an ideal traditional LD speech should give both line-by-line analysis and voting issues in the final rebuttal but I also do not think that voting issues are absolutely necessary, it appears I have given superficially contradictory answers to these questions. Another example concerns the criterion. One question is “How important is the criterion in making your decision?” I answered “It may be a factor depending on its use in the round” because I think that oftentimes, criterions don’t say anything and their truth or falsity has little bearing on the evaluation of other concerns in the round. However, the following question is “Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?” Objectively, the answer is no because clearly a debater could win without one. But I choose to answer “Yes” because I feel that every good traditional debate case should have a criterion. Yet these two answers appear in tension when they are not in tension at all. 

I could continue. Other than the first three questions which simply ask about background experience and judging history, I have taken some issue with the wording of the questions at one point or another. Of course, there is never going to be a perfect paradigm that neatly satisfies the preferences of all, or even a majority, of debaters and coaches. Because of the regionalization of debate and the different stylistic norms that govern each state and district, it will inevitably be the case that the paradigm will be written in a way that cannot make everyone happy. Yet, in my view, this paradigm is so useless that virtually every reasonable person would take some issue with it. Both “national circuit” and traditional coaches I’ve talked to have expressed dissatisfaction with the way the paradigm is constructed. 

And it’s not just that the paradigm is useless. It’s that the paradigm is also likely to be a source of misinformation. It is possible that the paradigm leads debaters astray. For example, what if a debater usually prefers not to spend so much time on the value criterion debate because they prefer debating the contention, but the paradigm says that the value criterion is “necessary.” Maybe the debater adapts poorly and spends too much time on the criterion debate at the expense of other concerns and loses a round. Sure, some might hand wave it away as a problem with poor debating or just a reality of debating in imperfect information environments. But I tend to think that when we shape the incentives of debaters by providing them with information that would obviously alter the way they debate and then impress upon debaters the importance of adapting to diverse judges and the debaters lose because of that adaptation, something has gone awry. 

I believe that two obvious remedies exist. First, there should be a requirement that judges fill out a full paradigm on Tabroom.com. Tabroom already contains space for judges to lay out their thoughts about debate in greater detail. The NSDA paradigm contains only a little space for judges to elucidate on their debate views, hardly enough to give debaters a reasonable idea of how their judge views debate (I often just use this space to provide a link to my full Tabroom.com paradigm and I wish that the NSDA paradigm would just auto-link to this paradigm on the NSDA paradigm itself, although it does pull up the full paradigm when you click on a judge’s name in the pairings). Many tournaments, both local and “national circuit” in nature, already mandate judge paradigms. Forcing judges to provide a more complete view of how they view debate can provide valuable information for debaters and their coaches. 

Second, some diverse and representative collection of well-respected coaches needs to discuss potential changes to this paradigm, soliciting input from the community. Identifying items that need to be updated, reworded, or even removed would be important in creating a paradigm that actually communicates useful and accurate information about the judges to the debaters. It is unlikely that any future paradigm produced will satisfy everyone, but it could at least make more people less annoyed. 

I have also previously suggested that “having judges watch a sample round and providing a decision and feedback about that round that is then viewable by the students would give students a concrete way [to] see how exactly their judge makes a decision in round. This could be part of judge training and the round itself could be available for students to watch as well.” While I still think this is a good solution, given the above point about the judging crisis, it’s not all that clear that this would be a palatable solution to a great number of judges who do not wish to invest more time than they have to. 

Ultimately, almost any reform would be better than what we have now. While I currently suggest to debaters to ignore the paradigms, it would be better if the paradigms just provided useful information in the first place. 

7. Why does round zero exist? 

No long rant here, just a simple question: Why does round zero exist? (If you’re not familiar, round zero was a round scheduled in the tournament to simulate a real round and check for technical issues and to familiarize judges and competitors with tournament procedures, but the round results did not affect anything.) If a debater doesn’t know how to use a computer or how Zoom works by the time they’ve qualified to NSDA Nationals after a whole year of online debate, I think that’s their problem. If a judge has never once judged an online tournament, should they really be the ones adjudicating what could be the final tournament of someone’s high school career? Besides, each round built in excessive amounts of tech check time to catch issues as they arose. And it’s not like the NSDA took round zero seriously either. The results didn’t matter and tab staff literally came into the room and suggested we just do a very truncated version of the round. If that’s the case, why schedule a whole round for this? Why not just a simple 5 minute tech check? 

8. Please stop barring oral feedback

The official justification given in the Online 2021 National Tournament Procedures for why they barred oral feedback is that “To keep rounds on time and ensure students and judges finish each day at a reasonable hour, judges should not disclose or explain their decisions.” I recently published a relatively lengthy post on Vbriefly about why I find such justifications particularly weak, especially in the context of online debate, but I find this particular defense even less persuasive given the logistics of the tournament. 

First, the tournament could have simply truncated round zero into a 5 minute tech check and recovered hours of the tournament to be used for oral feedback. 

Second, the tournament strongly encouraged rounds to start early. Competitors (including flight 2 competitors) and judges were required to be in their rooms 30 minutes before the start of flight 1 and tab staff frequently would enter our rooms and encourage us to start well before the posted start time. That is easily half an hour of recovered time per round that could’ve been used more productively. 

Third, judges submit fast (perhaps too fast). I would often submit ballots in under 45 minutes from the posted start time and still be among the last judges to submit (such that tab staff occasionally drifted into my room, encouraging me to submit my ballots). If there was any real risk in going off schedule, it’s that the tournament was going too fast and judges were not typing up adequate feedback on their ballots, not that the tournament was going too slow. 

All of this is to say that whatever the tournament’s reason for barring oral feedback, scheduling concerns were not it. They could have easily allowed it and still run ahead of schedule. Clearly, other reasons were at play here, but the tournament was simply unwilling to offer up their real reason for prohibiting such feedback. I’d at least prefer an honest reason. 

Here’s why feedback is so valuable. For many seniors, they will literally never care about their ballots. They will receive them after the tournament is over and they are done with debate. They will never benefit from those ballots. At the very least, judges could offer a little feedback to those debaters and that might actually be valuable in what could very well be their last round ever. 

For other competitors, it’s the end of the season. They won’t debate again for months (unless they attend camp). What good is feedback about a topic they won’t debate again or feedback about debate techne that can’t get implemented until the following season? As a judge, I feel disincentivized to write back detailed feedback on ballots about how to approach arguments or positions on this topic because that feedback will carry a fraction of its usefulness upon the conclusion of this tournament. As a judge, I feel a bit of frustration because I want to tell debaters a few comments that could really help them improve on this topic (or just avoid common mistakes like mispronouncing a name) and I can’t. As a competitor, I would not have succeeded at NSDA Nationals were it not for a few judges that offered exceptionally insightful feedback. I can never forget when Chetan Hertzig, head coach at Harrison High School, gave me just a few pieces of advice that carried me to victory after judging me in an elimination round. I even had a competitor ask for some feedback this year in prelims, proving that even many students want this type of advice, and I had to tell them that I could not for fear of attracting the ire of the tournament. I’ve written a much lengthier diatribe on this issue in my PROD article, so if you want to hear more rants, feel free to read that piece. 

None of this is to suggest that judges should disclose decisions in prelims. Obviously, I think both the lack of power-matching and disclosure in prelims is subpar (and I’ve written more about it in the 2020 edition of this series and in my PROD article), but I’ve decided to drop my crusade against it because maybe there’s something to tradition and maybe there are more important things to campaign for. But even without disclosure, I still think some form of feedback, even just allowing a few simple comments for each debater, would be far superior to the current strategy of having debaters stumble through prelims, never knowing which arguments work and which arguments don't. 

The fact that they allow some disclosure and feedback in elims (although they typically end the livestream prior to the beginning of judge feedback) proves that the tournament cannot possibly have an absolute principled objection against it, so what is it? 

Post-COVID Debate: What to Expect by Serena Mao

The Opinions Expressed In This Post Are Those of the Author And Not Necessarily Those Of Victory Briefs.

---

It’s been a bit over a year since the virtual UKTOC: the tournament that kickstarted an unprecedented season of e-debate. Since then, competitive high school debate has consisted of a whirlwind of new norms, workarounds, technical difficulties, and a lot of "getting used to." But just as we've acclimated to the strange conditions of virtual debate, we're also finally seeing the light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel.

As we slowly transition back to in person debate, some e-debate practices may be here to stay, while others may even have to be unlearned. Having experienced the highs and lows of both physical and virtual debate, I’m excited to observe e-debate's long term effects on the activity, but before then, I’ll offer my two cents on what I expect throughout the return to normalcy.

First, the most tangible changes to debate will be apparent in round at in person tournaments:

• Practices like whispering during PF prep are among the norms that will unquestionably return. Prep time enforcement will tighten up once again: no more “it’s taking a while to load.” ;) Tech issues will vanish, ensuring no debater is disadvantaged for having lower quality WiFi or a cheaper device.
• At the same time, the future of PF email chains is uncertain. On one hand, there’s no “Zoom chat” to conveniently share emails or a Google Doc link in, meaning debaters may very well revert to the traditional method of card-sharing. On the other hand, sending cards through email chains is far more educational, saves time, and better upholds evidence ethics.
• Formal clothes may or may not make a comeback. Online, fewer debaters are dressing up, hypothetically because less of their clothing is visible. Yet, many more have been shamelessly rocking hoodies and sweaters in late elims, possibly setting a precedent for more casual wear post-transition. With some talk in the past about the cost of formal clothes creating a financial barrier for competitive debate, many may welcome this change.
• Body language and other physical cues will regain their significance. Only the face and shoulders are typically visible through a cramped Zoom window—so when rounds return to school classrooms, hand gestures, projection, and posture will warrant increased attention. Though the bulk of online debate is centered around the substantive arguments made in round, physical debate will make pre-round small talk and the concept of “perceptual dominance” increasingly important, especially at locals or “lay” tournaments. Debaters joining the activity this year will find themselves having to direct their attention to a whole new facet of persuasion in order to continue picking up ballots.
• The pressure is on! Debating in the comfort of one’s home can be mundane, but it alleviates stress and distances oneself from the intense atmosphere of a cramped classroom. While a quick click of the “mute” or “camera off” button can immediately remove online debaters from the heat of the moment, competitors are effectively “stuck” and vulnerable during rounds when tournaments revert to normal. Emotional responses are not only more difficult to conceal or control in person, but can even be exacerbated during difficult rounds when the opponents and judge are sitting and speaking just a few feet away.

The out-of-round aspects of in person competition are equally as significant:

• Tournaments become a vacation on the side. At home, it rarely feels like we’re “at a tournament.” But in person, whether it’s in California, New York, Minnesota, or at any one of the dozens of tournament locations across the nation, intense hours of competition are interwoven with team dinners at niche restaurants or walking the streets of an unfamiliar city. At the same time, though, it’s important to be cognizant that frequent travel is unaffordable for many—making attending travel tournaments a privilege that competitors should not take for granted.
• Community! As cliché as it is, arguably the most valuable part of competitive debate is the people we meet along the way. Online, casual interactions must involve intentional texts and calls, meaning small talk with both previous strangers and acquaintances is rare. In person, hundreds of competitors are closely packed onto campus, meaning friends unintentionally bump into each other often (which is how most conversations start). The social aspect of tournaments isn’t just entertaining—whether it’s celebrating over recent wins or ranting about losses, bonding over the emotional rollercoaster of debate is an integral part of the in person experience.

The micro level impacts of in person tournaments are relatively clear-cut, but on the macro level, their return will have unclear effects on competition accessibility:

• Peter Zhang’s VBriefly article “Five Trends Among E-Debate Competitors” revealed that more small schools and lone wolf teams began competing this past year. This trend is unsurprising—without the need to travel, debaters living in areas with lower tournament density or just unable to afford high travel and entry fees are encountering far fewer barriers to competition. On the flip side, these debaters may face unprecedented obstacles as upfront costs rise again, signaling a need for renewed efforts to expand accessibility to retain these new competitors.
• Rumors suggest that e-debate may be here to stay, at least in some capacity. Considering the significantly lower costs of hosting an online tournament, some predict that previously in-person tournaments will permanently pivot to a virtual format. Even then, due to the possibility of technical difficulties and the perceived inauthenticity of online debate, most tournaments will likely face overwhelming pressure to revert to pre-COVID practices. However, it wouldn’t be surprising if a few tournaments remained virtual (or if new virtual tournaments are established) next year, maintaining some of the accessibility advantages of online debate.

From smaller in round changes to overall shifts in tournament schedules, it’s clear that the highly anticipated transition back to pre-COVID debate will entail both short and long term adjustments. After piloting previously untested practices and easing into the new normal of e-debate, debaters can now permanently adopt what succeeded, as well as regain the non-virtual experiences they missed dearly. So with that, see you next season—hopefully, in person!

Equity in Public Forum Debate: A Critique of Theory

DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the various authors and forum participants in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of any former, current, or future employer, group, association, and/or organization. Nor do the perspectives expressed thereof reflect any official policy or position of said institutions and/or affiliations.  Additionally, any content provided by the authors is of their sole and personal opinion(s) and not intended to malign any protected class or status, religion, nationality, gender, gender identity and/or expression, sexual orientation, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, person, and/or anything.  

Contributing Authors: Andrea Chow, Sue Foley, Brian Manuel, Nate Odenkirk, Nina Potischman, and Jack Wareham

---

Origins of Theory

1. Where did theory begin?

Brian: Theory “debates” have been happening for over 100 years, starting out in the pages of peer-reviewed academic journals. The Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking (1915–Present) is one of the first publications to feature academic discourse on practices, norms, and behavior in debate. A 1916 article, “Is debating primarily a game?” by William Hawley Davis, serves as the foundation of these theoretical discussions. Davis weighs the value of debate as a purely academic endeavor versus debate as a sport. His early take is not too far from contemporary theory “debates” on the question of “why we do debate." These types of discussions continued in the Journal of the American Forensic Association (1964–1989), Southern Speech Communication Journal (1971–1988), Southern Communication Journal (1988–Present), Argumentation and Advocacy (1989–Present), and the Debater's Research Guide (1979–2007). In the age of the internet, many of these discussions have moved online, and modern-day resources are referenced later in this article.

Academic theory discussions were introduced into debate rounds in the early 1980s, about the same time that hypo-testing and counter-warrants turned into counter-plans; yet it wasn’t until the late 80s and early 90s that these academic and in-round debates began heating up. In the Debater’s Research Guide (DRG), there was a proliferation of debate thought centering on the questions of actors (1) (2), competition, conditionality, and fiat. This was the beginning of theory debating as we know it today!

2. What is the purpose of theory?

Brian: The original purpose of theory was to check back against unfair, or “abusive,” arguments or practices in debate. Theory isn't intended to determine if a rule was broken; rather, it's an ever-evolving understanding of how debate should function.

In Policy Debate, theory initially centered on a counterplan being read conditionally, using an agent other than the USFG, or fiating utopia—different from the evidence, card-clipping, or cross-reading focus we see today, all of which are governed by a distinct set of rules.

Beyond Policy Debate, theory that originates in other formats is typically used to police in-round actions and/or demand specific actions be taken. The community has essentially traded in discussion of norms and best practices for theory arguments that see ballots cast in favor of (or opposition to) these norms.

Instead, theory should remain a tool to take the activity to new heights. It should push competitors to creatively develop, deploy, and execute their arguments in new, innovative ways. In sum, theory should serve as motivation to become better debaters—not discourage any particular strategy or approach to debate.

Structure and Overview

Nina and Nate: When we say “theory,” we refer to the ABCD violation format, as employed in Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debates.  For the purpose of efficiency, “theory” will refer to the argument in this hyper-technical form.  Additionally, for your review, please see the Appendix for an example of a fully formatted theory shell. Also, please refer to the National Speech & Debate Association’s High School Event Rules Manual (pp. 29-33) regarding Evidence Rules. As we wrote in our previous article:

What is the justification for the use of hypertechnical argument violations and standards in Public Forum debate? Doesn’t the format of PF better lend to these ideas being disputed in fully fleshed out and intuitive overviews, rather than relying on technicalities from other activities? For example, if evidence is miscut, why not simply read an overview explaining that said practice is unethical, is against the rules of debate, and should result in a loss?  The NSDA is quite clear on what constitutes an evidence violation and the procedures for resolving them.  Why are esoteric LD and Policy shells required to point out the clearest instantiations of abuse? The capacity to make clear, intuitive, persuasive logical arguments seems to resolve a lot of concerns about existing abuses in PF.

Odenkirk, N., & Potischman, N. (2020). The dangers of theory in Public Forum debate. Vbriefly. https://www.vbriefly.com//2021/01/11/the-dangers-of-theory-in-public-forum-debate-by-nina-potischman-and-nate-odenkirk/.

Our argument is that if someone reads a “theoretical” violation, it should be done in a manner that is understandable and accessible to a student without any background in theory. If the “citizen judge” would be confused by a theory argument, it should not be read, because to do so would shift away from the purpose of PF debate.  

3. Is theory necessary in Public Forum debate?

Nina: I don’t think so. In LD and Policy, fleshed out theory shells are more necessary to deal with practices like hyper-narrow plans, multiple conditional counterplans, PICs, NIBS, a prioris, etc. Plans and counterplans, however, are explicitly against the rules of Public Forum and debaters can lose for reading these arguments.

The only severely unfair argument I see in Public Forum debate is evidence ethics.^[1] Here, it’s worth emphasizing our argument. Claims about evidence ethics are incredibly easy to adapt to the format we defend; debaters should simply explain why a piece of evidence is so egregious to warrant their opponent losing the round. ABCD format, competing interps vs. reasonability, text vs. spirit, etc. are not necessary to prove that miscutting cards is bad.

Theory is also not the only recourse against evidence ethics violations. Most tournaments adopt the standard NSDA procedures for resolving these disputes - the round can be stopped, and if a person is found to have miscut evidence, they lose. This procedure should become common practice - academic integrity is paramount to critical argumentation. If evidence of ethics violations are so severe (which I have reason to believe they are), it would be better to petition tournaments and the NSDA for more stringent rules.  People would just need to cite tournament/PF rules and the violation. This practice is more universally effective than to have judges with varying understandings and levels of comfort evaluating theory.

4. What should a Public Forum debate look like?

Nate: Asking whether theory belongs in Public Forum necessarily forces us to consider the more holistic question of what a healthy PF activity looks like. As someone who competed in PF for all four years of high school (and coached for just as long), I have had ample opportunity to wrestle with this.

PF is big - and getting bigger. It is orders of magnitude larger than Policy or LD, despite being the youngest (It should also be noted that it is expanding globally to Canada and China). PF’s newness means it is a blank slate, with comparatively few esoteric conventions and jargon unique to the activity.  This lowers the bar for entry and success. It is for that reason, I believe, that PF is as prosperous as it is today. We must do everything we can as coaches to keep PF accessible by rejecting elements of “progressive debate” that are slowly creeping into the activity.

Theory is a great example. As Nina and I mentioned in an earlier article, theory emerged through decades of intentional trial and error in a negotiation within the Policy community (see Brian’s comments). On one hand, I concede that this experimentation could hold legitimate educational value. Without tight constraints, debaters are (in notion) free to try original and creative arguments, like theory. Yet such practices insulate the activity from newcomers and encourage a smaller, hyper-technical and overcoached community. It is in this environment where conventions like spreading—a practice that literally cannot be understood by 99% of the population—inevitably proliferates. An activity that allows any and all arguments will thus paradoxically alienate more and more perspective would-be novice debaters over time.

In my mind, there has yet to be a debate activity that has successfully resisted this feedback loop in the long run. Policy and LD are far down the rabbit hole, and PF is on the precipice. Keeping PF as a “big tent” activity means not just eschewing progressive argumentation, but also embracing what many consider to be PF’s shortcomings. Lay judges, possibly the most notorious source of frustration within the PF community, have in fact been the bulwark against the descent into hyper-technical debates. Lay judges cause consternation by voting off of seemingly immaterial moments in the round, like an offhand comment in one of the crossfires. Long overlooked by coaches and debaters alike, crossfire offers debaters a chance to craft a smart, strategic, and accessible cross examination of their opponent. I recently judged a bid round at a major national tournament where a lay judge voted on the cross ex. Instead of reforming the activity, I say embrace the fact that these judges will always exist, and spend more time practicing crossfire. Appealing to a disinterested and potentially uninformed judge is a legitimate skill that should be honed and rewarded. Contrariwise, the overemphasis on technical ability, where the round is only decided based on the flow, necessarily casts aside less tangible but equally important virtues like persuasion and narrative building altogether.

I do not claim to be an oracle of PF debate; it’s not my way or the highway. There are many coaches I have worked alongside with and respect who likely disagree with my analysis, and that’s okay. I simply posit that a more lay-friendly approach is crucial to keeping PF the largest event. Insofar as size of the competitor pool dictates how many resources and attention an activity gets, keeping PF comprehensible for the uninitiated is imperative to its survival.

Andrea: I envision Public Forum debate as a haven for students without the resources, desire, or ability to participate in circuit-styles of debate. As a coach for middle schoolers and early high schoolers, I spend a significant amount of time exploring the surface-level issues such as framework, substance and impacts with my students - and additional subjects like blocks or weighing. As we know all too well when working with kids, sometimes, this takes a while for them to grasp. With the limited time we have together, my co-coach and I are typically scrambling to fit individualized work, drills, and a practice round into a two-hour weekly session. Debate strategy and conceptual lectures are reserved for summer camps - a privilege for the students with time and money. Fortunately, though, Public Forum debate topics change every month.

This event was designed to be accessible to students of all backgrounds, as opposed to the kind of debater I remember thinking I had to be (one who dropped all extracurriculars and responsibilities to devote 100% of my time to debate). That's what, ultimately, drove me out of circuit debate. Between my coach moving away for law school and my attempts at balancing debate with school, with sports, and with my job; prepping out every single theory shell I could hit at a tournament was an impossible feat. I like to imagine that my students are in similar positions. It's not that they're not capable of understanding theory. On the contrary, they're incredibly smart, hardworking, and talented. They dazzle and impress both their teachers and parents alike with their understanding of civics, politics and history. The interdisciplinary nature of PF enhances their academic experience. I can easily imagine a world where theory and its esoteric norms cause parents and school administrators to question the educational value of debate. And, why shouldn’t they?  If I focus my effort, energy, and time on teaching RVIs and TVAs - just so my students can hold their own at a tournament - I would have just coached LD.

I don't think that advanced, technical debate is a direct trade-off with theory. I just think that if theory becomes a normal go-to position in PF, our community will lose a lot of brilliant, hard-working students who would otherwise be passionate and dedicated to it. That's not a price that I'm willing to pay.

5. What are your concerns about judging theory in Public Forum debates?

Nina: My biggest concern about judging theory in PF is as follows: imagine you’re judging two teams - one, from a large school (Team A) who is reading theory. The other, from a small school (Team B), who has no idea what theory is. Team A reads a theory shell with a voter section that looks something like this:

D: Fairness is a voter since every debate needs a winner. Education is a voter since that’s why schools fund debate.
Drop the debater to - a. Set a positive norm, b. Deter future abuse, c. rectify time lost on theory
Use competing interps since reasonability is completely arbitrary.
No RVIs - you don’t win for being fair.

Let’s say Team A reads a theory interpretation that Team B sent them cards formatted in size 10 font, which is too small, and thus they should lose. Team B stands up and explains that this argument is absurd because obviously Team A can still engage with their position, and thus this argument is silly and the judge should disregard it. Team A stands up and explains: team B conceded “Use competing interps since reasonability is completely arbitrary.” That means Team B loses because they didn’t read a counter-interpretation, and didn’t prove that using font size 10 is actively better than using font size 12. Team B only read defense on the initial interpretation, which presumes reasonability, and thus they should lose.

My concern is that a lot of judges will vote for Team A. Did Team B actually concede that they needed offense on theory to win? Well, kind of. They conceded the argument “use competing interps since reasonability is completely arbitrary.” But I just don’t think that this is actually an argument - it was not articulated in a manner that their opponent could be expected to understand. Secondly, it relies on judges applying outside technical knowledge of debate. The debater did not articulate an argument. Instead, they referenced an argument they knew the judge was familiar with, and the judge made the argument for them.

This, in my opinion, is a particularly devastating form of judge intervention. It allows debaters to win rounds on arguments they don’t understand. It gives no opportunity for debaters without prior knowledge to engage. While this is absolutely a problem in LD and Policy, it is exacerbated in Public Forum; shortened speech times lead to truncated arguments. Also, the spirit of PF does not require its debaters to have any technical knowledge as these arguments necessitate. Debaters should be expected to explain theoretical arguments in a way that anyone without a theory background can understand. Arguments not articulated in this manner should be voted down.

6. Do you believe the skillset of Public Forum debaters limits their ability to use theory?

Nina: No. And, we sincerely apologize that our arguments were perceived in this way - that is not our goal nor our intention.  We don’t think PF debaters are incapable of becoming good theory debaters or theory judges. We do, however, believe that theory debates in PF would be worse for the activity.

Making arguments more accessible does not make them worse or less intelligent. It is problematic to conflate intelligence with knowledge of esoteric debate concepts. Rather, it requires a specific kind of intelligence and skill in communication to articulate complex concepts in a way that is easy to understand. A professor who gives lectures that are incomprehensible to their students is not a good professor. Students who have not heard of theory before are not less intelligent than those who have.

Due to the time constraints in each of the debate formats, the students’ varying backgrounds, the judge diversity, and the purpose of Public Forum, I do not believe there is a way to adjudicate hyper-technical theory debates that is fair to students. If debaters cannot explain their arguments in a way that is accessible to people without background knowledge, they should not read the argument at all.

7. What are some online resources to better understand theory?

Nina: I gave an intro lecture here, and gave a more advanced lecture series with Jack that you can watch here, here, and here. DebateDrills does some great intros to theory, and this article by Jackson Lallas is helpful background. You can access UK’s Debate Theory vault here. If you would like to watch theory debates, Jack’s theory rounds are great - this is a round with topicality, the now (in)famous formal clothing round. If you want to see how disgusting theory rounds can get, you can watch this round where I read one absurd theory shell, and this round where I read (I think) three. This list is by no means exhaustive - these are just rounds that stick out in my mind from high school. I’ve also included a couple of theory shell examples in the addendum to this article.

8. If these online resources exist, what is stopping someone from simply teaching themselves theory? Why isn't theory accessible?

Jack: Theory debates are not accessible because of how quickly they become highly technical, arcane, and unintuitive. In order to be able to win a theory debate on either side, one needs to have deep understanding of a host of issues: how to phrase an interpretation of a debate rule, how to explicate a violation of this interpretation, how to succinctly argue for the benefits of this interpretation, and why the judge should vote against the violating team. Each of these questions then folds out into a series of more specific questions: when determining the nature of a theory violation, do we use the exact text of the rule or the spirit of the rule? How do you weigh impacts if a practice is unfair, but highly educational? Should the judge vote against the unfair team, or just get rid of the argument in question? How should we even evaluate the theory debate paradigmatically - should we vote for the best possible rule, or the one that seems reasonable given the circumstances?

The unfortunate truth about theory is that it is simply impossible to effectively self-teach. It would be like training yourself to become a lawyer without having a law professor. Excelling at the theory debate requires years of debate camp and effective coaching from the already-initiated. These are luxuries many cannot afford.

Certainly, students with access to quality debate camps and coaching are already at an advantage in every respect of debate. However, I have seen many rounds where disadvantaged students demolished their privileged opponents simply by understanding the topic better. Theory, however, all but ensures that the most privileged students will always have a leg up. Even the most intuitive, persuasive, and auto-didactic of debaters will have an extremely difficult time beating a theory argument unless they have been trained in the nuances of theory debate.

In short, it is expensive to debate theory.

Susan:  On some level, it doesn't matter if any individual competitor or coach could or could not teach themselves theory:  if new coaches are alienated by it, they may well configure their teams such that those possibilities for debate don't exist (if the team exists at all). 

Imagine the plight of a new coach: having taken a weekend away from family or loved ones, they organize a field trip with all of its headache-inducing logistics, deal with all the administrative rigmarole, teach the kids the topic and the format conventions as described by NSDA or their state association -- and then watch in horror as their hard-working students are voted down because they didn't know how to respond to "gotcha" theory about font size... Or shoe theory?

Even if they could convince their team to persevere through their understandable sense of injustice and “learn theory,” they might just decide to find something else to do with their collective time and energy - and hope that their admin didn’t find out what they had gotten their students into. Also note: theory norms are constantly evolving - usually in late elim rounds at a few, select (and expensive) tournaments. If your team doesn’t have the resources to attend those select tournaments (or you don’t have time to scour reddit threads and/or watch online - often illegally recorded - rounds), you’re at a serious and structural competitive disadvantage.

In short, the conversation about theory in PF often tilts toward what appeals to the successful, resourced, and vocal veterans rather than on what would intuitively create a sustainable format, capable of attracting and retaining new membership. I would argue that the reason PF took off so strongly was precisely because it didn’t have theory and was thus accessible to new coaches and competitors -- and also to LD and policy refugees who might otherwise have quit debate. The proliferation of theory jeopardizes that accessibility.

Ask yourself: do you know any circuit PF coaches who didn't debate themselves? I don't have hard numbers, but anecdotally - besides myself - I knew just one, and she quit this year. In an activity that is necessarily both capital- and time- intensive, we should be lowering bars for entry, not raising them. The lived realities of new coaches, struggling to get often poorly-resourced programs off the ground, are too often ignored in this conversation. The appeals to equity are unpersuasive as there will always be a trade-off between the types of inequities that theory solves vs. those that it creates.

Thus, the very theory that is intended to level the playing field and check back against abuse can also, ironically and indisputably, functionally exclude. Given that there are other formats in which to engage this type of argumentation and inquiry, there should also be a space for other argumentation preferences so that our community can reach a wider audience. 

Nina: It’s certainly not impossible that someone very dedicated to learning theory could use available online resources to learn it on their own. However, I believe that someone doing so would be at a significant disadvantage to someone with significant coaching resources, and access to camps. I want to emphasize that our argument is not that Public Forum debaters are incapable of getting good at theory. Instead, it is important to ask - who will be advantaged if this knowledge becomes necessary to excel in Public Forum?

First, the online resources only begin to scratch the surface in terms of learning to engage in hyper-technical theory debate. There is a big difference between understanding the structure of an interp and a counterinterp and being able to win a theory debate against an opponent who may have gone to camp, received a backfile from their school’s LD or policy team, or worked on drills with a private coach.

I have spent a significant amount of work learning how to master theory and how to teach it to others.  I read a ton of it as a debater.  I have consistently taught Top Lab at VBI where I spearheaded most of our work on theory. I also taught it to novices at my high school as well as to students in LD who I’ve privately coached for the past 3.5 years.

I want to emphasize that in both my own work and in my work with students, the intro to theory lecture takes about an hour. Learning about theory’s structure, however, is less than 1% of the total work required to be ‘good’ at theory debate. Over 99% is drills - both giving speeches, and the practice of writing theory. Conceptually, theory may not take a significant amount of time to grasp. But it is one thing to know the difference between competing interps and reasonability; it is another to know how to strategically manipulate these paradigmatic issues (things like text of the interp vs. spirit of the interp, potential vs. actual abuse, in round abuse vs. norms setting, semantics vs. pragmatics, fairness vs. education vs. strength of link weighing) to win a debate with five shells.

Mastering this knowledge requires dozens and dozens of hours. I spent 30-60 minutes every night the summer before my junior year practicing theory. I was incredibly privileged to attend camp, and work nightly with an instructor who would drill theory with me for hours. I was coached privately by an alumni from my school. I had novice directors with technical backgrounds. I had a team. I had a job, but not one that was time intensive. Without these resources, I would not have become a good theory debater. Without these resources, there’s also a good chance I would have quit Lincoln-Douglas (and very likely debate) altogether.

I want proponents of theory in Public Forum debate to carefully consider - who stands to benefit from the proliferation of theory in PF? In my opinion, it’s camp directors, private coaches with theory backgrounds who want an edge in hiring, coaches of schools with large debate budgets that can hire LD/PF coaches, and students that can afford these resources. The more esoteric debate becomes, the more value there is in hiring people with esoteric knowledge.

9. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Can't we limit the types of theory arguments being run, like disclosure and evidence ethics, without devolving to the hyper-technical theory debate that exists in other formats?

Jack: I’m somewhat sympathetic to this claim, since theory debate appears to be a tool of justice in a community that can often seem unfair. However, the practice of enforcing debate rules in-round through competitive argumentation leads inescapably to the perversion of fairness. This is because competitive incentives are antithetical to the fair resolution of dilemmas. Debaters want to win, very, very badly, and while theory debate has the potential to be a tool to enforce positive norms, it ultimately allows students to abuse it for cheap wins. As Nina notes below (see the emergence of “debaters may not be in the same room as their partner” theory violations in online PF debates), the assumption that good theory will naturally win out over bad theory is based on a naive understanding of the debate community, of which only one thing can be said for certain - many people will do simply whatever it takes to win, no matter the educational cost.

This is why LD debate is filled with pedagogically bankrupt theory arguments. To find examples, I didn’t have to look any further than my own high school theory file. Here’s a particularly egregious one: “Debaters may not label their defensive arguments as turns.” It’s an absolutely ridiculous theory shell. Of course, if an argument is defensive and not offensive, a debater should simply note that it is not really a turn. However, theory incentivizes students to take issues that can be resolved through normal argumentation and make it into a theory shell.

A whole section of my theory file had “meta-theory,” that is, rules about how theory can be read! It contained shells like: “Debaters must word their interpretations positively-saying what I must do rather than what I cannot do,” and, “All theory interpretations must have an interpretation advocate, defined as an author who has publicly defended the shell in writing.”

My theory file (which had a whopping fifty-thousand words - nearly five times the size of my undergraduate thesis) is filled with this endless stupidity. Take it from me, a seasoned ‘theory debater,’ this is not a practice you will look back on and be glad you took part in.

Nina: Debate trends are driven by what wins. If people win tournaments on theory, that creates a strong incentive for others to read theory. As more judges espouse their willingness to vote on theory, more people will read it. Theory is a short argument, not reliant on the topic, that ends the round. The incentive to read it is high.

I’ve already judged PF rounds where debaters ran shells like “debaters may not be in the same room as their partner” which seems frivolous for a variety of reasons - namely, it is dangerous to police what students do outside of arguments made in round. What about students whose home environments are not conducive to competing online? What about students without access to wifi? Students should not have to reveal their living situations to their opponents to win a round. Once “health” becomes a voter in round, it opens the door to lots of incredibly frivolous shells - like shoe theory (debaters may not wear shoes) read in Lincoln-Douglas.

Finally, I am concerned that advocates of theory in PF presume debate is simply a marketplace of ideas in which the best practices will triumph. This presumption ignores the power dynamics inherent in these debates; debaters without theory backgrounds will lose, not because they are wrong, but because they simply don’t have the training to engage in these debates. If bad arguments simply went away, theory in LD would not look the way it does now. There is no check against the proliferation of bad theory. Theory is a pandora’s box. I urge PF to think very, very carefully before opening it.

10. But, you liked theory debate!

Nina: I liked theory back when I debated (though I don’t anymore). But most importantly, not everyone wants to debate theory. Not everyone should want to debate theory. People who do not want to debate theory have a right to stay in debate. Advocating for theory in PF for theory’s sake does not make sense when you can do this in other formats. If you are a die-hard theory debater, I really encourage you to do LD - not only will it be better for your peers, it will be a space better suited for you to pursue your interests.

11. Isn't this censorship?

Nate: An emphatic, unconditional, and loud “NO!” This is not a straw counterpoint to raise, either. When setting the goalposts of an intellectual activity, there will be those who rightly warn of artificially demarcating what kind of speech is okay, and what is not.

Nina: Writing articles to provide people with more information about these practices in other formats is absolutely not censorship. Students can feel free to use this information as they please, as can judges. We are not going to stop anyone from running theory, or from voting on theory.

Judge biases are inevitable. We hope to provide discussion that helps judges interrogate these biases, and think carefully about their preferences. We believe there’s currently not enough dialogue about changing norms in Public Forum - our objective is more discourse, not less.

Plus, if someone really wants to become a theory debater, we are not censoring them. There are other activities where these arguments would be welcome.

People who believe that theory in full technical format, replicating LD/Policy style theory must answer the following questions:

1. What theory arguments does PF actually need?
2. Who stands to benefit from the proliferation of theory in PF?
   1. (schools with large budgets that can hire LD/policy coaches, big schools with LD/Policy teams)
3. Who will most likely be hurt by the proliferation of theory in PF?
4. Should all PF judges be expected to learn the norms of theory? Including, parents?
5. What will stop debaters who begin by reading disclosure theory or paraphrasing theory from reading arguments like font-size theory, or shoes theory?

---

Andrea Chow competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Parliamentary debate and Speech for La Reina High School. She earned five career bids to the Tournament of Champions in Oratory where her senior year she reached quarterfinals at the national tournament. That same year, she also reached quarterfinals in LD at the National Speech & Debate Association’s national tournament. Andrea was a four time state qualifier to the California High School State Association Tournament. She has coached Public Forum and LD for La Reina, the Brentwood School, Santa Clara University, and the Lumos and Triumph Debate Camps. She also assists the operations of Speech & Debate Stories. Andrea is a freshman at Yale University studying Ethnicity, Race and Migration.

Sue Foley has coached at Campbell Hall High School and Middle School in Los Angeles for the past nine years. Her teams have reached outrounds at the California State Tournament, National Speech & Debate Association, and/or Tournament of Champions in Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Parliamentary, Congress, Extemporaneous Speaking, Oral Interpretation and Impromptu. Additionally, she has coached two captains of the USA Debate team.

Brian Manuel is the Director of Debate at Edgemont Jr.-Sr. High School in New York and Director of Policy Debate at Stanford University. He also serves as an executive board member of the National Debate Coaches Association, consultant for the National Speech & Debate Association, and recent inductee of the Barkley Forum Gold Key Society.

Under his leadership, Edgemont’s debate program has flourished, winning five state championships, numerous TOC bids, and countless speaker awards, as well as presenting to the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill. His students championed the 2015 Georgetown Day School Invitational, 2018 Mamaroneck Round Robin, and 2020 New York City Invitational in Policy Debate; 2018 Harrison Round Robin, 2019 Newark Round Robin, and 2020 Scarsdale Invitational in Lincoln-Douglas Debate; and 2016 Lakeland Round Robin, 2016 Westchester Classic, 2018 University of Michigan High School Tournament, and 2019 Lakeland Round Robin in Public Forum Debate. Brian has enjoyed equal success at Stanford, where he coached its first team in two decades—and fourth team ever—to qualify for the National Debate Tournament, finishing in the top 30.

Over the course of Brian's 20-year coaching career, his students have advanced to elimination rounds at every major national tournament, including NSDA, NDCA, NCFL, NDT, and CEDA Nationals. He also coached the champions of the 2003 New York City Invitational, 2008 Barkley Forum, and 2012 Golden Desert Tournament in Policy Debate, along with the 2007 NCFL finalists, 2012 NSDA finalists, as well as the 2013 and 2019 Phyllis Flory Barton top speaker.

During the summer, Brian is the Academic Director at the Stanford National Forensic Institute. He previously taught workshops at the University of Kentucky, University of Michigan, Georgetown University, Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD), and Millennial Speech & Debate.

Nate Odenkirk competed in Public Forum debate for Oakwood School.  With his partner, Ella Fanger, he earned 13 career bids to the Tournament of Champions. They championed at Stanford University’s Invitational, Millard North’s Milo Cup, and the Jack Howe Invitational.  His senior year, Nate reached quarterfinals at the TOC national tournament. Currently, he is an assistant coach for Oakwood School. Nate is expected to graduate this June with a B.A. in Political Science from DePaul University. 

Nina Potischman competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate for Hunter College, earning 11 bids to the Tournament Champions throughout her career. Her senior year, she reached the final round of LD at the TOC national tournament and placed second. Also at that competition, she was both the Top Seed and Top Speaker. Nina was the champion of Yale University’s Invitational, West Des Moines Valley’s Mid-America Cup (twice) & Round Robin, Harrison High School’s Round Robin, Lexington High School’s Invitational, University of Pennsylvania’s Round Robin, and Harvard University’s Invitational.  She taught LD’s Top Lab for The Victory Briefs Institute (VBI) in 2017, 2018, and 2020. Nina has also worked for Debate Drills and as a private coach for students around the country. Currently, she is an assistant coach at the Oakwood School and is a co-founder of Speech & Debate Stories.  Nina is expected to graduate in fall 2021 with a B.A. in English from Pomona College.

Jack Wareham competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate at Oakwood School. Throughout their career, they qualified to the Tournament of Champions three times, receiving a total of 15 bids. Their junior year, they reached the quarterfinals at the TOC national tournament and received its Top Speaker Award. They have championed the David Damus Hollywood Invitational, the Harvard Round Robin, the Battle for Los Angeles, Loyola, the Valley Round Robin, the Valley Mid-America Cup, the Bronx Round Robin, the New York City Invitational, the Debate LA Challenge, and Harvard University’s Invitational. Jack also taught Top Lab in LD for the Victory Briefs Institute in 2017 and 2018 and was an assistant coach at the Oakwood School. While coaching, Jack specialized in teaching theory debate to novices and experts alike. Jack is currently a fourth-year undergraduate in the Rhetoric Department at the University of California, Berkeley, where they work as a research assistant.

---

^[1]Here, I’m referring to arguments traditionally read as theory in LD. I categorize arguments relating to equity/discrimination as kritikal - for example, arguments about misgendering. These arguments certainly belong in PF. I do not intend (or think it is useful) to make an exhaustive list of these arguments.

---

Appendix

Here is an example of a (silly) fully formatted theory shell. I’m intentionally including one that is too long to fit into a Public Forum speech.

A. Interpretation: debaters may not read extinction impacts.

B. Ciolation: they read an extinction impact

C. Standards:

1. Judge intervention. Individuals are cognitively biased towards high magnitude impacts.

Yudkowsky 06 Eliezer (Machine Intelligence Research Institute) “Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks” Machine Intelligence Research Institute http://intelligence.org/files/CognitiveBiases.pdf

In the above task, the exact probabilities for each event could in principle have been calculated by the students. However, rather than go to the effort of a numerical calculation, it would seem that (at least 65% of) the students made an intuitive guess, based on which sequence seemed most “representative” of the die. Calling this “the representativeness heuristic” does not imply that students deliberately decided that they would estimate probability by estimating similarity. Rather, the representativeness heuristic is what produces the intuitive sense that sequence (2) “seems more likely” than sequence (1). In other words the “representativeness heuristic” is a built-in feature of the brain [is] for producing rapid probability judgments rather than a consciously adopted procedure. We are not aware of substituting judgment of representativeness for judgment of probability. The conjunction fallacy similarly applies to futurological forecasts. Two independent sets of professional analysts at the Second International Congress on Forecasting were asked to rate, respectively, the probability of “A complete suspension of diplomatic relations between the USA and the Soviet Union, sometime in 1983” or “A Russian invasion of Poland, and a complete suspension of diplomatic relations between the USA and the Soviet Union, sometime in 1983.” The second set of analysts responded with significantly higher probabilities (Tversky and Kahneman 1983). In Johnson et al. (1993), MBA students at Wharton were scheduled to travel to Bangkok as part of their degree program. Several groups of students were asked how much they were willing to pay for terrorism insurance. One group of subjects was asked how much they were willing to pay for terrorism insurance covering the flight from Thailand to the US. A second group of subjects was asked how much they were willing to pay for terrorism insurance covering the round-trip flight. A third group was asked how much they were willing to pay for terrorism insurance that covered the complete trip to Thailand. These three groups responded with average willingness to pay of $17.19, $13.90, and $7.44 respectively. According to probability theory, adding additional detail onto a story must render[s] the story less probable. It is less probable that Linda is a feminist bank teller than that she is a bank teller, since all feminist bank tellers are necessarily bank tellers. Yet human psychology seems to follow the rule that adding an additional detail can make the story more plausible. People might pay more for international diplomacy intended to prevent nanotechnological warfare by China, than for an engineering project to defend against nanotechnological attack from any source. The second threat scenario is less vivid and alarming, but the defense is more useful because it is more vague. More valuable still would be strategies which make humanity harder to extinguish without being specific to nanotechnologic threats—such as colonizing space, or see Yudkowsky (2008) on AI. Security expert Bruce Schneier observed (both before and after the 2005 hurricane in New Orleans) that the U.S. government was guarding specific domestic targets against “movie-plot scenarios” of terrorism, at the cost of taking away resources from emergency-response capabilities that could respond to any disaster (Schneier 2005). Overly detailed reassurances can also create false perceptions of safety: “X is not an existential risk and you don’t need to worry about it, because A, B, C, D, and E”; where the failure of any one of propositions A, B, C, D, or E potentially extinguishes the human species. “We don’t need to worry about nanotechnologic war, because a UN commission will initially develop the technology and prevent its proliferation until such time as an active shield is developed, capable of defending against all accidental and malicious outbreaks that contemporary nanotechnology is capable of producing, and this condition will persist indefinitely.” Vivid, specific scenarios can inflate our probability estimates of security, as well as misdirecting defensive investments into needlessly narrow or implausibly detailed risk scenarios. More generally, people tend to overestimate conjunctive probabilities and underestimate disjunctive probabilities (Tversky and Kahneman 1974). That is, people tend to overestimate the probability that, e.g., seven events of 90% probability will all occur. Conversely, people tend to underestimate the probability that at least one of seven events of 10% probability will occur. Someone judging whether to, e.g., incorporate a new startup, must evaluate the probability that many individual events will all go right (there will be sufficient funding, competent employees, customers will want the product) while also considering the likelihood that at least one critical failure will occur (the bank refuses a loan, the biggest project fails, the lead scientist dies). This may help explain why only 44% of entrepreneurial ventures2 survive after 4 years (Knaup 2005).

Cognitive biases encourage people to give credence to extinction impacts arbitrarily, that includes judges, kills fairness since you cannot tell who did the better debating if your brain won’t let you decide.

2. Critical thinking. Hyperbolic focus on existential risk diminishes our ability to discuss impacts and learn about actually relevant issues.

Odekirk 10 Scott (Debate coach) “Impact Hyperbole: A Dilemma of Contemporary Debate Practice” August 6th 2010 http://puttingthekindebate.wordpress.com/author/toniputtingthekindebate/ deb(k)ate

It seems as though debate is stuck in a loop of nuclear wars and no value to life. We have a difficult time of conceiving of a terminal impact that doesn’t end in some ultimate destruction. Without terminal impacts such as nuclear war or the root of all claims, we have a tough time comparing and weighing impacts. Our arguments for spill over connect even the most improbable of scenarios. Take for example our Africa war arguments. Given that Africa, as a continent, largely lack nuclear capabilities the chances of a conflict escalating in this area of the world are slim at best, but still debate returns to evidence written by The Rabid Tiger Project. In fact if you google “http://www.rabidtigers.com/rtn/newsletterv2n9.html”, you will find the great majority of the hits are debate links. This particular scenario is largely a debate creation and the scholarly world around it seems to have largely dismissed this single article as lacking credibility. Even in a debate context, this particular evidence is difficult to take seriously with a big debate on the line. Beyond the most terrible of impact evidence though, a world of equally terrifying scenario’s exist. According to the debate community, we face nuclear war because of any of the following: economic collapse in any number of countries across the globe, a lack of US leadership, use of US hard power (pre-emption, imperialist expansion, etc), India-Pakistan conflict, Middle East escalation, Iran nuclearization, capitalism, the lack of capitalism, patriarchy, racism, nuclear terrorism, US response to a terrorist attack, Taiwan independence, Chinese collapse, Russian aggression, Russian collapse, or accidental launch of nuclear weapons. That’s a short list and I am certain it doesn’t contain all the ways a nuclear war could break out as described in debate scenarios. If one listened closely to the debate community, a sense of inevitable doom would most certainly replace any belief in a long life. As much as it would seem I am poking fun at the policy debate community, kritik debaters caught in the same loop. External impacts to our criticisms are often extinction claims. A great number of K’s end in root of all claims or no value to life claims. In a very similar pattern, our kritiky impacts reflect the same sense of terminal destruction we find in the policy community we often subject to kritik. Possibly living under the sword of Damocles has had more impact on our psyche than Americans give it credit. Possibly living in the information age has resulted in the ability to read any old nut as great impact evidence without the effective critical thinking skills to discern who or what qualifies as credible. Possibly debate as a community lacks a language by which to communicate the dangers of racism, sexism, homophobia, economic justice, poor foreign relations, or terrorism. Is this tumble into impact hyperbole a problem? Well, it definitely does not reflect the sort of care a scholar takes in his/her work. It lacks the humility of limited claims backed only with probable warrants. Although there are some scenarios which could escalate into extinction or which do explain important pre-conditions for violence or meaningful living, these scenarios are much more limited than the debate community gives credence. In theory, the repetition of these hyperboles naturalize them or, at least, make them appear natural/normal. Our community convinces itself the impacts we discuss are credible threats. We are a population believing in an exaggerated reality – a hyper real if you will. Before we give ourselves the credit of knowing that our impacts are exaggerated, let us consider those of us who move on to work in think tanks or write law reviews who assess the threats of nuclear wars to the United States. In fact, this honor, think tank writer, is given out at the NDT every year. Perhaps a better question is, what is the value of our current impact debate? We don’t really help avoid nuclear wars or prevent violence by making every possible interaction into a discussion of the potential for either. If all of these scenarios result in gruesome ending for life on Earth, then the issues become very muddled. The result may be a sort of nihilism which in its conclusion is more Darwinian than Nietzsche. If we decide there is a impact hyperbole problem, what then is the alternative? Of course, the literature is our guide to a sensible form of impact debate, but we wouldn’t be in this predicament without literature. No debater asserts these impacts; they read cards. Cards = Truth Currency. A solution is a better internal link debate. How do the scenarios unfold? To examine the internals means examining all the many different ways the world would intervene in order to prevent the terminal impact from occurring. Debate judges can only work with what debaters give them, but we too must be willing to tell a team their impacts are overblown when this argument is part of the debate. Giving a debate ballot to the team who finds a 1% risk of extinction is a silly judging paradigm at best. At worst, it reflects a lack of critical thinking on the part of a debate critic. I am most definitely not saying critics should intervene and make impact arguments that are not in the debate, but giving more weight to impact defense is an important start to reign in our impact hyperbole.

Key to education since learning how to solve problems in the real world is the only long lasting benefit of the activity.

D: Voters. Fairness is a voter- debate’s a competitive activity so you can’t assess the better debater if the round’s skewed. Education is a voter- it’s why schools fund debate and iy provides portable skills for the real world.

Drop the debater: 1. Substance is skewed, I invested time and altered 1N strategy to check abuse which shouldn’t have occurred in the first place- you can’t assess the better debater on substance. 2. Deterrence- a loss discourages them for engaging in future unfair practices.

Competing interps since 1. Reasonability causes a race to the bottom where we read increasingly unfair practices that minimally fit the brightline- we should set the best norms. 2. Collapses- you use offense-defense to determine reasonability being good which concedes the authority of competing interps- saying reasonability is reasonable is circular.

No RVIs: 1. Illogical- being fair doesn’t mean you should win- otherwise both debaters would win without theory, which would be irresolvable- comes first since every debate needs a winner. 2. Topical clash- once theory is initiated we never go back to substance because its unnecessary so no one engages in the topic. 3. Norm setting- RVIs force me to defend a norm that I might realize is bad in the middle of the debate, if I win then an incorrect norm is set. 4. Chilling effect- debaters will be scared to read theory for fear of losing to a prepped out counter interp, proliferating abuse.

Against Dogmatism In Debate by Joanne Park and Pacy Yan

The Opinions Expressed In This Post Are Those of the Author And Not Necessarily Those Of Victory Briefs.

Joanne Park is currently studying philosophy and mathematics at Columbia University and competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate for Archbishop Mitty High School. Pacy Yan is currently studying philosophy and bioethics at New York University and competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate for Stuyvesant High School.

---

The focus of this article will be the issue of dogmatism in Lincoln-Douglas debate. First, we will draw some broad strokes on the intuition for why dogmatism is bad—and what the current status of dogmatism is in debate. In order to do those, we will isolate what we find to be a key distinction between dogmatism and specialization of arguments. Then, we will develop this view by isolating how individual actors within the community tend to be dogmatic. After that, we will identify three individual reasons you should care, namely what we will call the instrumental, educational, and respect cases for minimizing dogmatism. Throughout the article, we will consider a few common objections in defense of dogmatic behavior. 

The Intuition

We take on board that people are in the debate community partially because they enjoy the process of argumentation. They enjoy doing research about a variety of different issues, discussing competing areas of literature, and figuring out interactions between positions that do not have a clear answer. Liking debate has built into it a move towards liking controversy since, without controversy and disagreement, such an activity like debate would have no purpose and would not be able to exist at all. 

A very boring kind of debate—and one that seems counterintuitive to liking debate—is if we only had debates about things we agree with. One step beyond this is our general intuition: there is something wrong and nonideal about a debate community that is filled with people who are dogmatic about certain kinds of debate. The “kinds” we have in mind are the different styles of debate delineated by argument or literature type—“policy,” “kritik,” “philosophy,” etc. The dogmatism we have in mind refers to the behavior of individual actors within the community regarding the superiority of individual kinds of debate over another. There are four different kinds of dogmatic behavior we take to be problematic: 

1. Asserting, as if it should be taken as obvious, that certain kinds of debate are just more or less educational than others; or, that certain kinds of debate provide little to no educational value or that some provide lots of educational value. 
2. Asserting that certain kinds of debaters are just of worse or better character than some by virtue of the kind of debate that they do. 
3. Consistently refusing to consider the merits of other kinds of debates—or the shortcomings of some. 
4. Making fun of kinds of debaters based on the kind of debater that they are with the implicit assumption that their form of debate is wrong. 

This kind of behavior exists throughout every level of the LD community—and across the different kinds of debate. This behavior concretely shapes the behavior of many of those in the community: judges, debaters, and coaches sometimes refuse to or will basically never tolerate different kinds of debate. Many people simply refuse to properly engage with, properly adjudicate, and properly teach certain areas of literature or argumentation because it is not what they have preference towards. Members of the community—adults and high-schoolers alike—engage in Facebook flame wars and the demonization of other members of the community. Coaches and judges inculcate inflammatory and dogmatic beliefs into students over time. Some have even gone so far as to attempt to weed out certain kinds of debate. This kind of behavior, in our view, is on some level fundamentally incompatible with an activity that exists because of controversy—especially controversy over many issues for which there are not clear answers. It is an activity that thrives on openness, so bottle-necking the issues that we can discuss by attempting to stigmatize it or weed out elements is in tension with some of the values we consider to be central to this event.

For the rest of this article, we aim to provide reasons individuals should change both their dogmatic behavior and the behavior they have as a result of dogmatic behaviors. Before getting into it, we will first isolate an important distinction. 

The Distinction Between Specialization and Dogmatism

Dogmatism, as detailed above, has something to do with repeated assertions about the merits of one kind of debate or debaters without proper warranting or adequately considering the merits of other kinds of debates. That is different from another phenomenon in debate we take to be common: specialization. 

Specialization is defined as the act of focusing in and “getting good at” one kind of debate. Specialization is, for the most part, a product of complexity and the breadth of knowledge that is referred to in debate: it is very difficult to learn about all the different areas of LD debate and it is truly difficult to get good at all these different areas. Specializing is, in a broad way, aligning yourself with the kind of debate that interests you either educationally, strategically, or otherwise. You might choose to specialize for a wide-ranging set of reasons, including believing that the debate format you like is the best. 

For the most part, we take the complexity of debate to be a good thing—a prime example of how this complexity arises is in the rise of policy-style and critical debate in LD. Most of us would admit that there are benefits to the introduction of those kinds of debate. Complexity is good since it encourages in-depth research, more critical thinking, and higher-level discussions. And, for the most part, we take specialization to be broadly value-neutral—it is not necessarily good or bad. 

A way of understanding the difference is that specialization is mostly a self-directed act; you specialize based on your interests. Dogmatism, however, is other-directed; you hold dogmatic beliefs through comparing different debaters or kinds of debate. In other words, specialization acknowledges that you’re making a decision based on your opinion, while dogmatism takes those opinions to be objective facts. 

Here is an analogy that will help with understanding the distinction: when you study at a college that cares about having a broadly liberal arts education, you are required to take a set of courses that often have nothing to do with what you specialize in, i.e. your major. These courses are commonly referred to as core or general education courses. Many of these subjects are not courses you are interested in but you are nonetheless required to engage in the courses to graduate and even more so if you want a good grade. There are no expectations that you will now adopt the content of these core courses into your major nor that you need to like the content of the courses. You are, nonetheless, required to take them. 

This behavior is evidently all permissible. Not liking the content of the core classes and liking your major more is undoubtedly acceptable. You might even think that the area in which you major is more valuable in some way than the subjects you have to study in the core courses. However, this becomes very wrong when you take your preferences to be what is factually correct without proper warrant—and also very wrong when you begin to demonize other people for being interested in that of which you are not. It is academically distasteful if you, simply due to a lack of personal interest, refuse to take the content of these core courses seriously. It is generally the case that we believe that we have a duty to be respectful, recognize the possible shortcomings of our own beliefs, and at least accept a plurality of interests. All of that is compatible with specializing—and even with believing that your area of specialization is the best one. No matter how great you think your major is, it does not give you the right to condemn the content of other courses or the choices that other people have made. 

The same thought applies to debate, especially if you view it as an educational activity. The academically and intellectually correct response to being subjected to learn things of which you do not have pre-existing interest is to “give it a shot”—try it out, engage with it, fairly consider it, and, even if you end up not liking it, respecting the right of those in the field to continue studying what it does. With that distinction in mind, we will now highlight the particular ways in which dogmatism is dominant among the different actors within the debate community. 

Dogmatic Behavior

Judges

Dogmatic behavior in judges manifests in a couple of ways. First, certain judges explicitly refuse to vote for a certain subset of arguments; these are the judges who write “tricks—no”, “I will never vote for condo bad”, or “If you read kritiks, strike me” on their paradigms. However, there is also a second type of dogmatic judge: the person who may not paradigmatically refuse to vote on arguments but will basically refuse to do so in application. Most of us probably know a judge like that: someone who says they aren’t opposed to voting for X argument, but basically never will. If you are having trouble picturing such a judge, imagine someone who, if your friends ask you how to adapt, you find yourself saying something like “their paradigm says they’re willing to vote on X, but that probably isn’t true. They have a really high threshold for voting on X.” Or, perhaps, judges who you know you will basically never win in front of when against an equally skilled opponent if you debate in a particular style.

Before we get into our argument, however, we will lay out two clarifications. First, a word of caution—there is a difference between thinking that you will never win because the judge would hack against the argument that you would like to read and thinking that you will never win because you won’t be able to beat another debater on something the judge is comfortable voting for. If you’re a policy-style debater who knows very little about critical debate, there is a difference between thinking that you’ll lose because the judge refuses to vote for “case outweighs” and thinking that you’ll lose because you won’t beat the K debater and the judge is willing to vote on those arguments. We are, of course, interested only in the former case. The latter is merely a question of skill.

Second, we do not mean to criticize judges who confess that they are less experienced with a certain style of debate and advise students to debate in a different way if possible. For example, a judge who did policy debate in high school may be less comfortable with tricks or philosophy, and a judge who did primarily philosophy debate may be less comfortable with kritiks. These judges are incredibly common, mostly due to the specialization point we outlined above: if, as debaters, individuals tend to pursue certain types of debate over others, it is only natural that that knowledge disparity exists after they graduate. The difference between these judges and the two cases we outlined in the beginning, then, is that these judges are generally willing to vote on arguments they are uncomfortable with if obviously won (i.e. in a debate that isn’t close). The latter category, on the other hand, refuses to vote on these arguments even if clearly mishandled or dropped. We acknowledge that there often isn’t a clear brightline for what constitutes “obviously won” (especially given that most debates require some level of subjective evaluation), but our concern is more with the mindset/intention of these judges. It matters, for example, whether the judges in question are making an honest attempt to be a better judge and adapt to the debaters or activity. 

What is so bad about the behavior of judges who are genuinely dogmatic, then? The first kind of judge most likely sounds unappealing, especially if they refuse to vote for the types of arguments you enjoy. And, if you think that, then you likely feel uncomfortable with the thought that other people might rejoice in or support the dogmatism of this judge to refuse to vote on your argument. Furthermore, even if you personally may like the thought of a judge hacking against an argument you are trying to defeat, that personal victory directly trades off with someone else’s chances being harmed. It is indisputable that most of the debate circuit does not debate in the same way, so any dogmatism will inevitably harm a relatively large number of debaters. As someone who serves as an educator or adjudicator, it is wrong to impose your area of specialization on students in such a way, both in the sense that it is against the spirit of critical thinking and in the sense that it stifles students’ ability to find value in the activity. Going back to our earlier metaphor: it is one thing for a professor to explain to you their area of specialization, but another altogether for them to condemn you when you try to discuss other areas that you’re interested in. 

Perhaps you now are having the following thought: what about the second kind of judge, the ones that are not openly opposed to arguments that they don’t like? Are those judges not better? We would argue no, because they are basically like the first judge, but with an air of being dishonest to themselves and others. These judges, in some ways, are worse (and much more common), for two reasons that we will briefly outline:

1. Elitism: this goes without saying. Knowing whether certain judges are truly opposed to certain positions despite expressing otherwise is something that one could only know from others telling them or from extended experience on the circuit. The more judges of this type there are, the harder it is for students who are inexperienced, just breaking into the activity, or lack connections.
2. Ambiguity: how do you adapt to a judge who isn’t even honest with themselves about their paradigm? There is already some level of guesswork involved with judge adaptation—what are you supposed to do when the judge is somewhere in between what their paradigm says and the opposite of what their paradigm says?

Another potential objection here may be “judge adaptation”, or that debaters have the obligation to adapt to the preferences of the judges, not vice versa. The argument that judges are justified in being dogmatic because debaters should learn to adapt to people who judge differently is, in our view, just a poor excuse for bad judging. Different teachers and classes have different teaching styles and formats and it is useful for students to learn to adapt to those. The benefits of such adaptation do not, however, justify teachers disregarding how their students learn best and what might be ways in which the material could be more engaging for students. In other words, the adaptation is bi-directional; teachers and students ought to meet each other halfway. 

There is no reason to uniquely place the obligation to adapt onto debaters. It seems that the most plausible view involves judges and debaters adapting to each other. There are good reasons for this: first, if this is a good justification for dogmatism, then we are left with a particularly unsavory view of debate where debaters are limited in the kinds of things they can read. If one really wants to do philosophy debate but can only go to predominately west coast tournaments, luck is not in their favor. Of course, it is not impossible to succeed, but it is significantly harder. At the point where “judge adaptation” means being unable to read the arguments you want to read in many different rounds, something seems to be wrong. 

Second, we think that judges owe something to debaters they are judging, even if it’s just out of courtesy. We take this to be a commonly held intuition. Debate is not about the judges; it should primarily be about the debaters doing the debating. Judges and coaches are meant to be tools through which debaters can do that debating. This is especially true if you think of debate as a business: debaters are the people investing money into debate and judges and coaches profit off of it. If we profit off of debaters, it seems as though we have a duty to respect what it is they want out of the activity. Why should you get to profit off of something if you do not respect those of whom you are profiting off of? Furthermore, even without the business analogy, we think that judges should, especially as adults, care about the debaters that they are judging, e.g. being cognizant of how they feel, monitoring the safety of the round, and being nice to them when giving feedback. 

Finally, most debaters react to dogmatic judging not by adaptation, but by changing their prefs. In a world where certain judges absolutely refuse to evaluate entire styles of debate, most debaters are more likely to pore over their pref sheets instead of spending time modifying their prep. This undermines the entire purpose of adaptation, as debaters end up even more insulated than before—only debating in front of people who already agree with them. 

Another objection here from judges may be that certain arguments simply do not meet their threshold for what constitutes an argument. We accept that, while people may have different brightlines for what a complete “argument” is, this still does not justify the kind of dogmatism we are talking about. Specifically, we distinguish between styles of debates and arguments within that style; for example, even if judge X might believe the “Good Samaritan Paradox” or agent counterplans are non-arguments, that does not then justify saying tricks or policy arguments writ large are non-arguments. Our case condemns views that characterize entire categories of arguments as being just good or bad arguments. We argue that any decision based on this logic should be justified with the merit of the argument, not the kind of argument you take it to be. In other words, you should not take it for granted that one argument’s badness trickles down to another; with our earlier example, the distinction would be that you can say “GSP is bad”, but not “GSP is bad so tricks are bad” or “tricks are bad so GSP is bad”. There needs to be good reason for you to generalize and the vast majority of cases probably do not count. 

We argue that, even if it is the case that certain arguments may be bad (or not complete arguments), the burden is on the judge to justify that, rather than rely on pre-existing delineations of what arguments count. Finally, we agree that there is a separate, difficult question about how judges should evaluate arguments they may not think are “real”; however, that distinction is not quite the scope of the paper and making a judgement on that matter is not necessary to prove our argument.

Debaters

Debaters tend to be dogmatic in two ways: in social contexts (through demonization) and in a competitive context (by refusing to learn and engage with arguments they dislike). Both are highly prevalent and—we argue—problematic.

Most individuals in the debate community are likely familiar with what demonization is and how it occurs. It has certainly become increasingly prevalent as the debate community’s internet presence has grown. With social media (primarily Facebook), a number of debate-oriented blogs, and even unofficial forums like Discord, members of the community have grown more vocal in their personal opinions about debate. While discourse over debate opinions is in no way intrinsically harmful, debaters have increasingly grown to see themselves as referendums on what styles of debate are “better” or “worse”. 

When speaking about styles of debate, debaters are often more confident than modest. That is, they’re more likely to say “x form of debate is the worst” or “people should only read y arguments”, rather than “I’ve found that, generally, x style of debate is executed poorly”. Furthermore, these discussions are generally framed as a statement of fact, not opinion—even though they are very much the latter. We believe that these arguments are often unproductive, as debaters are inevitably going to disagree over which styles of debaters are best (because of their personal experiences and the specialization point discussed above). Thus, these conversations are, at best, useless and, at worst, drive wedges between entire groups of debaters, as denouncing entire styles of debate (and pronouncing them less intellectually enriching or valuable) either is or can be interpreted as personal attacks on debaters who practice those styles.

Personally, both of us have had a number of conversations with very talented debaters who argue that certain forms of debate should no longer exist and/or make claims that debaters of a certain style lack intelligence or skill. This is confusing to us: we all do an activity that’s relatively niche, and put a lot of time and effort into it—why not recognize that the others’ work is important and valuable? Not only is this behavior divisive, it also produces a culture of elitism: when groups of “good” debaters uncompromisingly argue their style of debate as the best, the work of debaters who do debate in a different style (who are less competitively successful) is discounted. 

Furthermore, even if there is hypothetically a “best” form of debate, debaters are in no way qualified to adjudicate what that is. First, most debaters have only been participating in the activity for (usually) around 3-4 years. The LD meta is incredibly volatile; the popularity of certain arguments changes drastically in a matter of just 1-2 years. For instance, a lot of the high-level philosophy debate present around 2017 has declined in the last three years, while policy and kritiks have increased in popularity. A debater who started debating around 2018, for example, will have had less exposure to what good philosophy debating looks like, and is unlikely to have an accurate perception on the value of those debates. 

Second, debaters are incredibly insulated in how they view debate because they filter their perception of the debate meta through their personal competitive experience. A debater who has spent three years working on policy skills will inevitably see policy as the “most valuable” for education, because that’s how they’ve gotten most of their insights about debate. This is best exemplified by debaters’ tendencies to see themselves as X types of debaters (e.g. the declaration that so-and-so is a “K debater” or “tricks debater”); thus, even when learning about other styles of debate, many are likely to approach that style with the understanding that they are already X type of debater. This is especially true given the regional divide in debate styles that’s indubitably present in the status quo: a debater who only went to Northeast tournaments will have a pretty different experience with how particular styles of debates are executed than a debater who exclusively debated in California. 

Coaches

Coaches, like debaters, also demonize and refuse to engage in positions they don’t like. We would argue this is uniquely bad since they hold an actual educational role in the activity, specifically for the students they teach. The majority of debaters’ opinions about debate come directly from the paradigmatic beliefs of their coaches. This form of demonization is similar to the kind we outlined in the Debaters section: speaking in absolutes, devaluing debaters’ efforts, and—most potently—deliberately omitting and/or condemning styles of debate from their curricula because they believe it to be less valuable. 

This has become more prevalent as coaches, judges, and debaters from policy have begun to enter LD. At California bid tournaments almost half of the judging pool has a background in policy; likewise, many debate schools in this region have head coaches and assistant coaches who have done policy or continue to compete at the collegiate level. We certainly don’t take issue with this intermingling of policy and LD: policy and kritik style debating has astronomically evolved over the last few years precisely due to the influence of former policy debaters. Without a doubt, LD can and should learn a lot from the high-level, nuanced debating that seems to be a lot more present in policy. 

Our concern, then, stems from the tension that has developed between individuals with and without policy debate backgrounds. Individuals who dislike the influx of policy influence argue that LD is “losing its identity” or denounce judge pools that have large amounts of policy judges, arguing against the mingling of these events. We have even seen certain judges who paradigmatically refuse to vote on policy-style arguments, telling debaters of that style to “go do policy”. On the other hand, some individuals who come from policy wholesale denounce a lot of the things that make LD unique, advocate for the eradication of philosophy or tricks style debate, and/or claim it to be the inferior event. This creates a sense of close-mindedness that further drives styles of debate (and sometimes, entire coastal regions) apart. LD is certainly an ever-changing, flexible event that will inevitably react to the policy meta, but it’s also an event that stands distinct from it. Trying to drive it in one direction only furthers demonization, robbing groups on both sides of the spectrum from valuable insights that the other can offer.

Why Should I Care?

Perhaps you’re reading this article and asking yourself, why do I care? I’ll still debate and/or judge and/or coach how I want, and the debate community isn’t going to change. While we agree that such macro level changes in the debate meta are difficult to achieve, we still think there are a couple of ways in which debaters, judges, and coaches can work to minimize dogmatism. Hopefully, this article has already motivated a part of you to care and that share our intuition that there is some tension between dogmatic behavior and the core values of debate. If you share the view that dogmatism is bad and attempting to be less dogmatic yourself is of little cost to you, then you have reason to try discouraging it. To cement that intuition, however, here are the explicit cases we give for why you have reason to minimize your own dogmatism: 

The Instrumental Case 

Our first case is the instrumental case—that becoming less dogmatic is of direct benefit to you and your personal goals and/or career. This is most obvious when we are arguing about debaters, who will inevitably encounter different styles of debate (and will have to beat them to reach high level competitive success). Thus, there is obvious value to start learning the nuances of styles of debate you may not specialize in. For example, even if you never plan on reading a kritik, spending a day thinking about and drilling how kritik debaters do the link debate (from the perspective of the kritik debater) will help you better predict how your aff debates against the kritik will go. If you practice going for an NC against util enough times, you’ll begin to realize how to most strategically defeat those positions as the util debater. But, if you prima facie reject those other styles of debate, you’ll never have an opportunity to gain these insights. If you practice going for a philosophical position a couple of times and decide that you hate it, that’s fine; at least you took time to expose yourself to how those kinds of arguments work. And chances are, once you learn the nuances of those arguments, you won’t.

We think this is especially important in the age of online debate. Over this past season, tournaments that were once primarily “east” or “west” coast tournaments have slowly lost that distinction. Because travel is no longer a relevant consideration, debaters and judges are free to attend whatever tournaments they want, which has, in turn, increased the diversity of argument styles at most national circuit tournaments. While both of us hope for in person debate’s return, this new trend in the meta seems like the best time to learn other styles of debate, as encountering different styles is more likely than ever. 

For coaches, learn those styles of debate with your debater! The argument above illustrates why debaters who are less dogmatic are likely to be better; assuming that most if not all coaches partially decide to coach to improve their debaters’ skills, it seems intuitive that doing so makes you a better and more well-versed coach. Again, you do not have to coach every style of debate equally (though it would be impressive if you could)—just learn enough about those styles to engage and potentially even appreciate them. 

The case for judges we find to be a little bit less intuitive, as there does not seem to be a direct personal benefit to judges becoming less dogmatic. However, we would argue that judges owe it to the activity, especially given many judges have been debaters in the past. This is for two reasons. First, we can appeal to what the role of the judge is: a fair and neutral arbitrator of a debate. We would argue that becoming less dogmatic will allow you as a judge to fulfill this role, as you are definitionally more neutral (and thus more fair). Second, most judges—to some extent—profit from debate. If it is true that decreased dogmatism makes debate more fruitful, it seems plausible to say judges are somewhat responsible for making an activity they profit from better. 

The Educational Case

We take this case to be pretty straightforward: all kinds of debates are educational—yes, even what some may call tricks debate. Part of what motivates this belief is that debate is less fundamentally about content-based education and more about skills-based education. This view requires a longer, more developed article to develop, but the basic intuition is this: all formats of debate make obscure, debate-specific arguments that are often, at best, poor simulations of real discussions that people have in the real world. No matter how convoluted the link to a disadvantage is, how radical of a claim a kritik makes, or how counterintuitive some of the claims that phil debate promotes, we often accept those arguments as legitimate. This is not because we think of them as adequate reflections of how the real life analogues of those educational areas are, but because we think that it is useful for us to consider those positions in developing our skills in argumentation and critical thinking. Thus, we think there is value in figuring out how to respond to positions that are counterintuitive, even false, and that of which we do not agree with. 

Furthermore, despite the apparent ridiculousness present in some of the arguments people make, we think individuals would be hard-pressed to really be able to defend a view that certain kinds of debate are totally devoid of education. For example, paradoxes, a commonly detested argument for being tricky, are a legitimate area of study within larger philosophical and mathematical literature – there are real people who dedicate a part of their study to figuring out how to solve, consider, and deal with paradoxes. 

The Respect Case

If science is your favorite field of study, are you now justified in belittling, antagonizing, and demonizing the humanities? Certainly not—and we think that people who do so are, at best, annoying and, at worst, doing something really disrespectful. If you find the kind of debate you like valuable, that is not a good enough reason to scoff at the areas that other people find valuable. Even if you think that your field of study or your area of specialization is, in fact, the best one objectively, that still does not give you such a good reason.

We believe there are two explanations for this. First, there is reason to be epistemically suspect of your own beliefs that the field you enjoy is the best. To make such a judgement, you need some set criteria through which to determine what the best kind of debate is. Such criteria are difficult to come up with and probably requires some appeal to the intrinsic features of the activity. There is certainly no agreement among which criteria count and, unless you have a really good reason for believing in your criteria, you can see why we are skeptical. Even if we agreed that there are such criteria, the question of to what extent different debate forms meet or measure out in terms of such criteria is often difficult to determine and compare—and also subject to widespread disagreement. Different find different kinds of debate valuable and for reasons, many of which others do not share. Different people also find debate valuable for different reasons—many of which others do not share. There is a strong case here for plurality regarding the value of debate and the respective merits under which different forms of debates measure out. 

Furthermore, we suspect that many of the claims that people make about the apparent superiority of certain debates over others are merely ways to hide the real reason they have this belief: they just like a certain kind of debate more for personal reasons. At the end of the day, is there really a fact about which formats are better than the other? Of course, we do not really have an answer to this question and, on some level, we do not see it as a worthwhile discussion to have due to the above-stated ambiguities and radical differences in beliefs. Our discussion sidesteps such a concern too: even if there is a fact about which is better, it does not appear as if we have the tools to make that sort of judgement. 

The second explanation also brings into light why this sort of discussion is irrelevant to our argument—we are not attempting to make a factual judgement about whether there are facts about what debate is better. Even if there were, due to widespread disagreement, there is a strong case for respecting the rights of others to value debate and kinds of debate in different ways without significant interference from others, especially educators in the community. Not only should you be epistemically modest, but you owe it to other people to respect that of which they take to be valuable. If your friend has a teddy bear they find valuable for sentimental reasons, you do not need to find it valuable. It would be quite terrible of you to belittle or diminish your friend for valuing the teddy bear or to make fun of people who like teddy bears. People really do find different kinds of debate valuable and, in general, debate valuable for different reasons. You owe it out of respect to let them do that. Maybe there is a best kind of debate, maybe there is not. Fighting over Facebook and using backhanded tactics to try and artificially advantage your form of debate does not resolve that question—nor does it prove that the debate you like is better. All it reflects is your poor character. 

Conclusion

Ultimately, we believe that all active members of the debate community should actively work to rid themselves of dogmatic ideology and behavior. It may be the case that you are reading this article and agree with our intuitions but are unsure whether you, personally, have acted dogmatically in the past. Many of you are probably tempted to point to debaters/community members on the opposite side of the argumentative spectrum and believe they’re the dogmatic ones. However, we implore you to engage in genuine self-reflection about comments you’ve made, conversations you’ve had, decisions you’ve given, and/or things you’ve taught. It can also be helpful to have open-minded conversations with community members who engage with a different style of debate than you do and reflect on the kinds of criteria you use to determine what arguments you do and do not like. It is likely that you, along with the vast majority of the community, hold dogma in some way or another; this article is not a condemnation or a call-out, but a call to re-evaluate your ideals for the sake of the broader debate community—and so you can get more out of debate in the long run. 

---

Joanne Park is currently studying philosophy and mathematics at Columbia University, where they compete in both policy and APDA-style debate. They debated for four years at Archbishop Mitty High School in California, qualifying to the TOC, accumulating three career bids, championing the College Prep Invitational, and making it to late elims and getting speaker awards at several other bid tournaments. As a coach, they have coached multiple students to bid at the Tournament of Champions and help with publishing and brief-writing for Victory Briefs.

Pacy Yan studies philosophy and bioethics at NYU where she is a member of the C.E.D.A. Policy Debate Team, the Undergraduate Law Review, the Philosophy Forum, and CAS Student Council. She qualified for the TOC and received various speaker awards and Round Robin invites as a student. As a coach, Pacy has coached students to the elims of the TOC every year of coaching so far and has coached students to late elims of major tournaments. 

Disclosure in Numbers by Peter Zhang

Introduction

I fondly recall my first outround: it started 20 minutes after pairings were posted, and Millburn AW did not disclose. In response to their topical hauntological-feminist-counterfactuals K-aff, I read a disclosure shell and presented reasons why military conscription was a bad policy. Following the crushing defeat, I helped my opponent set up a wiki page.

It's hard to picture this scene playing out in 2021. Nowadays, my team's pre-round disclosure decisions mainly concern how to best deflect pesky requests for our new aff's plan text or standard text. Over my four years in debate, disclosing full-text has gone from unstrategic (because they'll have your cards!) to even more unstrategic (because they'll have your cards, and you'll still lose to o-source!). The change is the product of countless debates over proper disclosure, both in-round and out-of-round.

Much has already been written on the subject. Previous articles have argued that disclosure is more fair and improves clash. Others have responded that disclosure harms creativity, isn't more fair, and hurts small schools.[1] Some articles have advocated for full-text disclosure, open-source disclosure, and tournament-required disclosure. The merits of disclosure are even being discussed in Public Forum.

I believe these discussions are too theoretical. Among the articles I referenced, only Bob's 2014 survey tries to actually assess the state of disclosure in LD. Questions like "does tournament-required disclosure work?" or "do norms improve over time?" benefit tremendously from concrete measurements. So—you guessed it!—I gathered some data.

Before I dive in, I should mention my personal stances. I think disclosure is good. I think open-sourcing might be harmful (for research skills). I'm inclined to favor full-text. You might disagree with me, and this article won't argue with you. Here, I merely want to present the state of disclosure.

Dataset

I scraped the wikis (during off-hours) of every season starting 2014. Schools and teams with egregiously misformatted wiki pages (i.e. a handful of PF-ers) were omitted. I collected the round info, cite names, and round reports of each team's page.

I also collected Tabroom data on every LD bid tournament, with historical records reaching back as far as available. Tournaments that weren't hosted on Tabroom or which didn't have entries pages were excluded. For the 295 remaining tournaments, I scraped the Novice, JV, and Varsity entries of LD, PF, and Policy. I made some judgement calls in categorizing these, but generally, Novice was open to middle schoolers, Varsity had a TOC bid, and JV was in between the two.[2]

I matched teams and tournament by using team names and school names. The losses are moderate (think 10%-ish), but significant enough that you should treat the results with caution. The aff and neg pages were combined for the analysis—if they only open-sourced on the aff, that still counts.

The Norm Setters

Let's start with the state of disclosure theory. This season's debaters love it. About a third of Varsity LD entries had a cite that mentioned disclosure. One-third is huge compared to last season and the season before, when the proportion plateaued at around 20%. It must have to do with the online environment—e-debaters are, on average, more engaged, more tech savvy, and much less likely to just ask for the aff in person.

Of course, "disclose citations" isn't a revolutionary idea. The real changes were in the other disclosure interps: open source, new affs bad, full-text, and round reports. Full-text blew up in 2017 and has steadily declined since; it seems to have been replaced by open source, which is now fairly popular. Round reports is still a fringe interp (as it should be). New affs bad, on the other hand, has grown exponentially: one in every seven debaters demands the plan text!

Norms Have Been Set

Ok, so there's more disclosure theory—have the sacrifices of substance been worth it?

It appears so, and along every metric too. Two-thirds of debaters disclose and the proportion has been growing each year. As we may have expected from the earlier chart, there was a bump in this season of about 10%. Of those who post cites, the share who post round reports and open source has grown consistently since 2016 and now is at almost 90%.

This is remarkable! In 2015, less than 5% of debaters open-sourced. Now, well over half do. The turnaround presents strong evidence that disclosure norms are malleable.

Tournaments

Using Tabroom data, we can disaggregate these rates across tournaments. I looked at just the 2019-2020 season. There's a ton of variation. Bid-level seems to be the strongest determinant. Sparsely-attended finals bids have the lowest rates of disclosure (e.g. only 4 out of 63 competitors at Myers Park disclosed). Meanwhile, large tournaments in California and Texas tend to lead the pack. A couple east coast tournaments also have strong disclosure practices: Bronx, Yale, and Columbia, to name a few.

The leading tournament, Harvard-Westlake, is an interesting case study. One reason that they have the highest rates of disclosure is that their invite requires it. That wasn't always the case. Up until 2016, there was no mention of disclosure in the tournament invite. In 2017, the invite required debaters to post cites. In 2018, the standard was elevated to open source. You can see these changes year-by-year: a big jump in cites in 2017, followed by steady increases in open source in 2018 and 2019.

The requirement also applies to the novice division, and the increases here were enormous. The rate of open source nearly tripled from 2016 to 2017, although it has declined since. Cites follow a similar pattern. Make no mistake—these disclosure rates may be lower than those of varsity, but they are stellar compared to the rest of the circuit. You'll see that in a bit.

All of this suggests that tournament-required disclosure does, in fact, achieve substantial compliance.

But What About the Children?

They are learning! From 2015 to 2020, the proportion of novices and JV entries that posted cites increased by six-fold. The rates for round reports and open source increased by eleven-fold and nineteen-fold, respectively.

Of course, the absolute proportion is still very small. If you're in an average JV or novice division, there's about a one-sixth chance that your opponent discloses. Nonetheless, if younger debaters are taught to disclose well, that should drive future gains in disclosure practices.

Putting the "Public" in Public Forum

Public Forum is at a tipping point. As PF-ers import arguments from LD and Policy, disclosure has snuck on board. I'll showcase a few examples here. These wiki pages are from my former high school teammates and they're fairly representative of the frontier in PF. Their cites certainly aren't bad (shoutout Dheeraj and Lawrence!).

And when the cites are bad, they open source. I don't think posting rounds has caught on yet (it's certainly a hassle), but that's probably asking for too much, too soon.

The data bear out these trends. In the first two years of the PF wiki, less than 3% of entries had a wiki. That quickly changed in 2019. Now, Varsity PF debaters post cites more often than JV and Novice LD-ers, and the gap is growing quickly. They've also picked up open source. In LD, there was multi-year lag between posting cites and open sourcing; of PFers who disclose, over a third already open source.

If PF takes the route of LD, we can probably expect rapid growth in cites and open source over the next few years, with a small lag in round reports. That will be an interesting development to watch.

Thank You, Harvard-Westlake

To wrap up, I tallied the number of citations and open sourced documents contributed by each school from 2015 to 2021. They provide crucial sustenance to bottom-feeders like myself in high school. Topping it off with both the most cites and docs is Harvard-Westlake. The runner-ups are Strake, Harker, and Lexington. Just for fun, I included anyone with a "DebateDrills" cite under their own school; very impressively, they came in fifth. Thank you, prep fairies.

Limitations and Next Steps

The data I used were limited in several respects:

1. Tabroom data was often unavailable for older tournaments. It seems that larger tournaments were the earliest to adopt Tabroom, which may skew the results.
2. I only examined LD bid tournaments, which probably isn't representative of PF. It certainly would help if someone could collect Tabroom IDs for PF tournaments.
3. Some entries were lost in the matching process. If Tabroom said "Harvard-Westlake" and the wiki said "Harvard Westlake" (without the dash), then the entry and debater wouldn't be connected, which could lead to systematic errors. A softer comparison (that tolerates errors) might do better.

Some cool follow-ups questions that this dataset could help answer include:

1. Are successful debaters more likely to disclose? Do they also disclose more?
2. Conversely, are debaters who refuse to disclose more likely to win, controlling for other factors?
3. What positions are being read? How does that change by location and over time?
4. Do debaters "cluster" around types of arguments (e.g. phil, policy, K)? Are judges systemically biased in favor of certain clusters?

Stay tuned. Thanks to Alan George and Joanne Park for their helpful comments on this article.

---

[1] Follow-up articles have responded that it is more fair, enhances creativity, and protects small schools .

[2] You can find my scraping tools and many more details about the scraping process on the repo. Leave a star! And get in touch if you are interesting in collaborating.

The Dangers of Theory in Public Forum Debate by Nina Potischman and Nate Odenkirk

Nina and Nate are Public Forum debate coaches for Oakwood Secondary School in Los Angeles. Between them, they have 13 years of experience judging and competing in circuit LD and PF.

Varsity Public Forum circa 2021 is little different from Novice Policy, or JV LD. PF teams have found success running hackneyed “theory,” in which teams try to one-up each other in an unending game of brinkmanship. For those unfamiliar, theory is an argument not about the resolution, but instead about the practices of debaters in round. For example, debaters must disclose their positions on the NSDA PF wiki. Or, an infamous example from Lincoln Douglas Debate – debaters must not wear formal clothing, or, alternatively, shoes.

In this article, we do not aim our criticism at all of theory debate. Theory against active forms of violence and discrimination is a well-needed addition to PF, notably, misgendering theory. Additionally, theory against miscutting evidence seems well-warranted, though it seems a better option to simply stop the round and report the violation, already a mainstay procedure at nearly every tournament. We do not aim to tackle the question of kritiks in PF, which if executed correctly and in good faith (big emphasis on if), offer promise to prompt important conversations and ask debaters to consider necessary questions.

Our concern, instead, is aimed at how allowing theory writ-large in PF is a pandora’s box. A necessary critical evaluation of these progressive arguments has gone by the wayside. Here, we will outline a couple of concerns about the serious consequences of reading theory PF. We hope that the PF community will take this discussion seriously as it envisions the future of the activity.

For some background, in Lincoln Douglas, theory takes on an ABCD format.^[1] LD reached the current hyper-technical iteration of theory through many years of intentional negotiation of its form, such that ‘use competing interps since reasonability means judge intervention,’ is a form of shorthand that members of the activity have come to quickly understand.

Our first question – is theory, as read in LD and Policy debate, even necessary in PF? Should debaters be required, or even encouraged, to be familiar with this form? We posit: no.

The shorthand used in theory debate only works if it is, indeed, shorthand. (It is worth noting that this shorthand in LD is still very arguably bad). Grafting this shorthand into PF leads both debaters to fill in the blanks with their own personal knowledge (or lack thereof), leading to incredibly arbitrary debates with missing warrants, where personal opinions carry significantly more weight than arguments actually made in round.

Why can’t PFers just make these arguments in fully fleshed out and intuitive overviews, rather than relying on technicalities from other activities? For example, if someone miscuts evidence, why can’t you simply read an overview explaining that miscutting evidence is really quite bad, goes against the point of PF, and so your opponent should lose? Why do you need esoteric formatting to point out the clearest instantiations of abuse? The capacity to make clear, intuitive, persuasive theoretical arguments without reading LD-style theory shells seems to resolve a lot of concerns about existing abuses in PF. Below, we will flesh out some of the dangers of allowing LD-style theory. Any concerns of proliferating abuse in PF are non-uniqued by the fact that egregious practices can be intuitively pointed out; in short, the recourse to theory is wholly unnecessary, and carries significant risks, outlined below.

First, respectfully, PF judges – you all do not know how to evaluate theory. If you think you know how to evaluate theory, you are probably particularly bad at evaluating theory.^[2] We don’t mean this as an insult. We think it is perfectly acceptable that you don’t, because why should you? The vast majority of circuit PF tournaments are populated with parent-judge pools, an inconvenient fact for teams that style themselves as progressive. We can say confidently: we have never in our entire time coaching, judging, or observing Public Forum heard a half-competent RFD on LD style theory from a PF judge.

Understanding theory requires having dedicated a significant amount of time to attending lectures about theory, watching theory rounds, debating theory yourself, etc. It took me (Nina) about eight months, including going to camp drilling theory for hours a day, until I understood theory. It would be years until I believed myself capable of adjudicating it.

Judges have (in general) a huge issue with humility. I (Nina) listened to an RFD in which a judge voted on theory, admitting they did not want to explain their decision first because they thought it would not make sense, as they didn’t understand progressive arguments. Judges should not vote on arguments they do not understand. It makes rounds completely arbitrary, and subject to judge biases that play significantly more into decisions than actual arguments made in round. It is absurdly unfair to expect students to debate theory in these circumstances. Especially because there are no prefs in PF (and you might even have a parent in the back!), there is no way to predict how a judge will adjudicate theory. Theory simply destroys debate rounds.

More PF judges should admit that they do not understand theory, and simply refuse to vote on it. We promise it is much better for the kids than claiming to understand something that you don’t have background on. There is nothing wrong with not understanding theory. There is something wrong with claiming you do understand it when you do not.

Second, theory can raise the barrier to entry for many, worsening exclusion problems already endemic to debate writ large. As we explained above, it takes a long time, usually all four years of high school, to become technically competent to engage in theory debates. This competence requires paying for expensive LD/Policy coaches, going to camps that might range between $4k-8k. This requirement significantly raises the barrier for entry in PF. Debaters who do not have the resources to learn esoteric and hyper-technical skills will be left to the wayside. The fact that someone cannot answer theory on the line-by-line very likely does not prove the shell was correct – only that they do not possess the resources to know what it looks like to answer theory ‘correctly.’ That is the peak of unfairness. Instead, a merit debate where anyone can engage with the topic as written provides the levelest playing field for all.

We do not posit that this is the intention of every team reading theory, but it is an unfortunate and inevitable consequence. However, there certainly are teams that read theory in bad faith in order to trip up opponents unfamiliar with the argument.

Third, it calls into question activity pluralism. People want different things out of debate, and so there are different events to suit these aims. Here, it is important to ask, why does Public Forum exist? Why should Public Forum exist?

Given that theory is hyper-technical, not necessarily relevant to real life (I, Nina, who read a ton of theory swear that topic debate is one hundred times more useful to life than theory debate), it is very understandable that some people would not want to have to engage with it. Whether theory in LD/Policy is problematic is a separate question. But when discussing theory in PF, asking if theory is good in general is the wrong question. We should ask, instead - do we want three hyper-technical events inaccessible to the common observer, or do we want two?

We believe PF is simply more valuable if it caters the needs of groups not represented in other formats. This is the largest impact to exclusion; if we turn the sole event that our parents could actually understand into discount LD, there will be a lot of debaters who no longer feel welcome in our community at all.

Exclusion is inevitable. No model of debate will suit everyone’s interests. But who should we exclude from PF: People who want to read technical arguments that they can simply read in another form? Or debaters who, forced to debate theory, might decide to leave altogether?

Fourth, theory is fully incompatible with PF’s time constraints. There is simply not enough time to execute theory correctly. A four-minute constructive does not allow for intricacies demanded to fully explain competing interpretations, while reading an in-depth position on the topic. This time-crunch leads to significant bastardizations of these arguments, making these debates meaningless.

Fifth, theory jeopardizes topic education. It is impossible to talk about topics in depth while having a theory debate given PF time constraints. Because theory can decide rounds, the incentive to uplayer rather than discuss topical issues is high, leading to a likely decline in topical discussion.

Sixth, it triggers an inevitable race to the bottom. Barring a wholesale rejection of theory in PF, debaters will be inclined to push the envelope towards less educational shells in blind pursuit of the W. Anyone doubting this devolution need only look as far as font size theory, wherein a team must be dropped for the unpardonable offense of using 11-point font in their case as opposed to 12. The floodgates will open, as they have in LD and Policy, and will steamroll any team that crafts a logical case and brings value to the activity.

At its very best, PF tests a high schooler’s ability to take relevant facts, craft an argument, and persuade the layperson. In reality, the format has trended towards card dumping and speed talking with little room left for intelligent argumentation. Debaters that run tricky cases or blippy cards (and, more importantly, the judges and coaches that encourage it) actively minimize the usefulness of the form.

We love debate. It prepared us for college better than any high school class could. It taught us the value of not procrastinating, instilling a work ethic that we continue to be thankful for. We made friends in this activity that we still have. And the trophies weren’t bad, either. But all of that was possible because LD and PF worked when we were debaters, for the most part. Public Forum must move away from theory to regain its educational value.

Nina Potischman debated LD for Hunter College High School, earning 11 TOC bids throughout her career. Her senior year, she reached finals of the TOC, where she was the top seed and top speaker. She won the Yale Invitational, the Mid-America Cup Round Robin, the Harrison Round Robin, the Lexington Invitational, the Penn Round Robin, the Harvard Invitational, and was a two-time champion of the Mid-America Cup. She was a finalist of the Big Apple Round Robin, a semifinalist of the Princeton invitational, and the top speaker of the Lexington Invitational and Harrison Round Robin. She is currently a senior at Pomona College.

Nate Odenkirk debated PF with his partner Ella Fanger for Oakwood Secondary School, earning 13 TOC bids throughout their career. They championed Stanford, Millard North, Long Beach national tournaments, reaching quarterfinals of the TOC their senior year. He is currently a senior at DePaul University.

---

^[1] A is the interpretation – the rule debaters must abide by. B is the violation – why your opponent violated your rule. C are the standards, or reasons to prefer your rule. D are the voters, which contextualize why your impacts matter – usually these voters are just fairness or education. The voter additionally contains implications – should you drop the debater or the argument to rectify this rule violation? The voter also tells you if you should evaluate theory using reasonability or competing interpretations: competing interpretations requires your opponent to have offense on a ‘counter-interpretation,’ a competing rule that you follow that you think is preferable. Or, reasonability, which says that you just have to be fair “enough.” Then there’s the RVI debate (short for reverse voting issue), which decides if your opponent should win for proving they were not abusive.  If that sounds like a lot, it is, and our point is to demonstrate the complexity of theory’s form. You can learn more about it in a lecture Nina gave here. If this is confusing to you, that’s okay. That’s part of our point, as we’ll discuss more later.

^[2] For judges reading this that think I’m wrong, I’d love to know your thoughts on all of the following: do you default to text or spirit of the interp? What’s your default threshold for reasonability? Have you debated, and won a 1ar in a circuit LD or Policy round with a qualified circuit judge? Does competing interps require an explicit counterinterp? Is terminal defense sufficient under competing interpretations? Should counterinterps and interps be read in constructives, or rebuttals (and can I expect debaters to understand my preferences going into the round)? Why are RVIs considered illegitimate in policy? What’s the difference between T and theory? Have you only ever witnessed fewer than five theory debates? Is this the first theory debate you’re adjudicating? What is metatheory? Does metatheory come before theory (why or why not)? What should you do if theory is read without voters? What is a theory voter? If you could not answer any of these questions, or answered no, I BEG YOU: be honest with yourself. It is admirable to admit your own limitations, and to simply put in your paradigm - “I will not vote on theory because I do not know how to evaluate it.” I even wrote it out for you to copy and paste.

Five Trends Among E-Debate Competitors by Peter Zhang

Peter Zhang is a student at UC Berkeley, a former TOC quarterfinalist, and an assistant coach at The Bronx High School of Science.

Edit: The author has added some updates regarding the original article which can be found here.

Introduction

Tournaments this season have, so far, been held exclusively online. While judging debate rounds certainly feels different through a Zoom window, virtual platforms have also affected who chooses to sign up for tournaments.

Plenty of factors could be relevant in the transition. One is that location no longer matters: you can compete at a tournament whether you're in the same county or across the country. At the same time, the format could reward debaters with better Wi-Fi connections and mics. Many other factors, like the economic hardship imposed by the pandemic or decreased support from schools, may also alter the face of the competition.

So, who are the e-debaters? This article looks at five trends in the data.

Dataset

I considered every tournament held from September to December of 2020 with a bid in LD, as well as their 2019 counterparts. After excluding tournaments that didn't post entries (Scarvite) or weren't hosted in 2019 (Delores), the dataset included 27 tournaments¹. For each of the remaining tournaments, I scraped information on Varsity LD competitors off the Tabroom entries page. Entries that lacked a location were omitted from the geographic analysis.

Analysis

Trend #1: There are fewer debaters, but they compete more frequently.

A first glance at the data highlighted big shifts over the last year. Among them:

• 1312 debaters competed in an average of about 2 tournaments in 2019; 1103 debaters averaged 2.77 tournaments each in 2020.
• The total number of entries increased by 17.5% from 2019 to 2020.
• Tournaments gained an average of 18 competitors this year.

The decrease in distinct debaters shouldn't be surprising. Teams could've had a tough time recruiting new debaters. Debaters themselves might have had other priorities in their lives. And, competitors who enjoyed the social aspects of debate may have felt that tournaments were no longer worth it.

The bump in entries is also predictable. With fewer logistical barriers, avid debaters could've had greater access to tournaments. Moreover, many tournaments usually held early in the year were postponed (e.g. St. Marks, Notre Dame), which might have concentrated interest in remaining, available tournaments.

Trend #2: Tournament pools are shaped by competitive incentives, a function of bids offered and concurrent tournaments.

The increase in entries wasn't uniform across all tournaments. Twenty tournaments got more popular, but the entry pools of seven unlucky hosts either shrunk or stagnated. The differences are drastic. The size of Valley's entry pool doubled (from 93 to 201) while JW Patterson's pool was halved (from 74 to 37).

Competitive incentives can explain the difference, and the trio of Alta, UT, and Princeton offers an insightful example. The three semis bid tournaments were held on the same weekend in both 2019 and 2020. This year, UT and Princeton lost a third of their entries; Alta's pool increased by nearly half. That's interesting enough, but let's take a look at the pools this year: UT had 100 entries, Alta had 109, and Princeton, 112—roughly equal. This equilibrium is exactly what we'd expect if, in the absence of geographic barriers, debaters just followed the bids.

Two other case studies stand out. The first is Loyola, a quarters bid: it tripled the size of its pool from 66 to 172. Surprising on face, but reasonable in light of the fact that no other tournaments were scheduled for that weekend—debaters didn't have a choice.

The second is JW Patterson and Bronx. What caused JW's entry pool to collapse? The answer, it seems, is that debaters abandoned JW (a finals bid) to compete at Bronx (an octas bid), which offered fourteen more bids. Sure enough, Bronx picked up fourteen more competitors this year. After factoring bidding opportunity, the 37 to 185 disparity seems a lot more reasonable (maybe even too small!).

Trend #3: While dominant states began debating across the county, smaller states have also ramped up participation.

Of course, in many states, circuit LD has little to no presence—for most, this year hasn't changed that. This list includes Delaware, Kansas, Montana, Tennessee, Vermont, and Maine. But, some of them saw their first competitors this year: we can welcome competitors South Carolina, West Virginia, Hawaii, and Michigan to circuit LD.

Across the board, smaller states grew their presence. Just take a look at Arizona, DC, New Mexico, or Wisconsin. On average, states like these—with fewer than 20 competitors in 2019—doubled the number of entries in 2020.

Among larger states, the biggest winner by far was California, where entries skyrocketed from 528 to 840 (that increase is, by necessity, omitted from the map below). New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Texas were stable, while Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington saw moderate increases. Meanwhile, states like Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Virginia—many in Southeast—saw fairly large declines in participation.

But are these increases actually driven by debaters competing at faraway tournaments? As it turns out, yes.

I estimated the location of a given tournament or competitor from the geographic centroid of their state. With two sets of coordinates, I computed the distance between a tournament and each of their competitors. It isn't very accurate, but it should certainly reveal if, for example, more West Coast debaters are competing on the East Coast.

The average competitor traveled about 350 miles to tournaments in 2019; this year, the average competitor was 700 miles away from their host. Debaters from Texas, Utah, Nevada, New Jersey, Minnesota made the biggest leaps in distance, which makes sense: debaters that normally would just attend in-state bid tournaments have chosen to explore.

On the other hand, the tournaments with the biggest increases in distance were UT, College Prep, Duke, Grapevine, Heritage, Jack Howe, Loyola, and Seattle. Tournaments that are usually attended by locals and a handful of travelers have gone national. This parallels the increase in the number of states represented at tournaments: in 2019, the average tournament hosted competitors from 9.37 states—that number is now 17.07.

Trend #4: While cross-tournament differences have tightened, e-debate seems to slightly favor well-off states.

While competitor pools have become more geographically diverse, I suspected that they also have become more privileged. I took the median real household income for each state and used it as a benchmark for wealth. I also took the median ACT scores of each state as a proxy for the quality of education. As you might expect, states on both coasts tended to measure the highest on these metrics.

I looked at how average income and ACT scores changed for the tournaments. The geographic trends drove most of the change across these metrics, tightening the spread of ACT scores and household incomes. If a tournament mostly drew competitors from well-off states in 2019, then more competitors from less privileged states competed in 2020, and vice versa.

Nonetheless, the weighted average shifted upward for both metrics. The average median household income increased by $811 from 2019 to 2020; the average ACT score rose by 0.079. I conducted a two-sample pooled z-test the ACTs and incomes of the 2019 and 2020 entries. The increase in ACTs scores was somewhat significant (p = 0.0465) while the increase in income was highly significant (p = 0.000546).

These increases aren't large, but overall, wealthier and better-educated states are sending more debaters to tournaments. All of this makes sense if we keep in mind which states grew the most over the shift: states like California, Massachusetts, and Washington.

Trend #5: More lone wolves and smaller teams are competing.

Finally, I took a look at the teams that signed up for tournaments. In 2019, 19.9% of entries signed up as the only competitor from their school. This year, that proportion has risen to 25.3%. In fact, the size of squads seems to be generally declining. The average team size in 2019 was 2.96, while the average team in 2020 had 2.79 members.

Plenty of factors could explain the trend: lone wolves might find it easier to sign up, there's probably less need for teammates, and some tournaments have doubled down on entry caps. Regardless, this year seems to be more welcoming to smaller squads.

Conclusion

Based on results from tournaments this year, overall participation seems to be weathering the virtual environment—with some caveats. While competitors are more geographically diverse, the increase in entries might be skewed towards wealthier states. At the same time, more smaller teams are competing, and teams everywhere are signing up for tournaments based on bid potential.

You can argue about whether these changes are net good or bad—I won't make a case for either. But, with the TOC slated to be held virtually, e-debate seems to be here to stay, at least for the rest of the season. That means that questions about who is debating and how they are affected by the online format are important to consider.

There were several limitations to this analysis:

• I omitted tournaments that were held in the fall of 2019 but were postponed this year, which likely underestimated participation in 2019.
• Some entries either omitted or falsified information (why did Princeton say they were from Maine?). I rooted out some obvious errors, but a more detailed review could be helpful.
• Estimates for location wealth, and education were all based on state-level data.
• The z-test assumes that samples are normal. While both samples seem to be bell-shaped, normality tests decisively show that they are not normally distributed.
• The pooled z-test assumes two independent samples. In reality, the 2019 and 2020 samples are likely to be fairly correlated, which means the standard error may be an overestimation. As a result, the p-values are probably conservative.

Avenues for future analysis include:

• Extending the analysis across multiple years and different events
• Incorporating more granular data, perhaps drawing on testing/income stats on the school level
• Studying judge pools—are they similarly diversifying?
• Cross-referencing the wiki to infer changes in argument style

For anyone interested, the data and code are available here. A big thanks to Raul Larsen for maintaining his very helpful TOC Calendar. Thanks as well to Alan George, Aimun Khan, and Joanne Park for their helpful edits and suggestions.

________________________________________

¹ The full list of tournaments includes: Alta, Apple Valley, Blake, Blue Key, Bronx, College Prep, Cypress, Dowling, Duke, Glenbrooks, Grapevine, Greenhill, JW Patterson, Holy Cross, Isidore Newman, Meadows, Nano Nagle (Voices), Princeton, Ridge, Seattle, Strake, UK, UT, Valley, Yale.

Two Dogmas of Fiat by Jacob Nails

A. Introduction

Most debate resolutions concern policies[1] that donot exist in the status quo and likely will not exist in the near future, ifever. Lincoln-Douglas resolutions in recent history have included suchimprobable policies as banning handguns (Jan-Feb ’16), establishing a draft(Sep-Oct ’17), and eliminating plea bargaining (Jan-Feb ’18). Debaters seekingto bypass arguments about the likelihood of these policies passing might invokefiat. A long-standing and widely accepted tenet of competitive debate,fiat is the principle that debaters need not prove that their advocacy isprobable, only that it is desirable. 

The classic argument for fiat goes as follows:

(1) Justification: If the negative were allowed to contest the likelihood of the affirmative policy, the affirmative would almost never win; therefore,
(2) Conclusion: The judge should assume for the purpose of the debate that the affirmative policy will pass if they vote affirmative.

This conception of fiat extends far back into debate’shistory. For example, take the following passage from a debate manual penned 25years ago by collegiate policy debate coach David Snowball, which explains thejustification for fiat:

“Fiat (from the Latin for ‘let it be done’) is a debate convention designed to focus attention on the substance of a resolution, rather than on questions of its political feasibility…Without the concept of fiat, all debate would come to a screeching halt as the negative team simply shrugged their shoulders, pointed to the inherency contention, and commented ‘well, it just ain’t gonna happen!’”[2]

I will refer to this view as the theoretical conception offiat, as its reasoning is grounded in debate theory, i.e. that debates would bebetter if fiat were assumed as a rule. I take this line of thought to be themain modern view and suspect that most debaters would give a rationale for fiatalong these lines, if pressed for one. Even the Wikipedia entry on policy debate terms defines fiat in a waythat mirrors the conclusion of the theoretical view:

“Fiat (Latin for 'let it be done') is a theoretical construct in policy debate – derived from the word should in the resolution – whereby the substance of the resolution is debated, rather than the political feasibility of enactment and enforcement of a given plan, allowing an affirmative team to ‘imagine’ a plan into being. (emphasis mine)”[3]

Anecdotally, I recall a very highly ranking debate teamrecently argue in a high-profile round that fiat is “extra-topical” because theadditional assumption the affirmative makes about the likelihood of planpassage is not germane to the resolution itself but added by debaters. I alsorecently judged a round where the affirmative claimed to admit that fiat was ameaningless theoretical construct and went on to argue that embracingmeaningless was good. These two examples spring to mind because explicitdiscussions of “fiat” were central to them, not because they challenged theprevailing consensus. Far from it—I believe these rounds are representative ofa broad trend of viewing fiat as being an artificial theoretical norm.

While this view is both longstanding and widely held withinthe debate community, I will argue that both its justification and conclusionare mistaken. I do not mean to claim that fiat as a principle is bankrupt,merely that it is widely misunderstood. A proper conception of fiat will notfundamentally alter debate, but it will have ramifications for a few commondebate arguments, some examples of which will be identified below.

B. The Justification for Fiat

According to the theoretical justification for fiat, ifresolutions were debated at face value, the negative would have access to anargument so devastating that the affirmative would rarely have hope of winning.Therefore, debate rounds must adopt an extra theoretical parameter to preventthis game-breaking argument. What is this response that allegedly makes everyaffirmative plan untenable? In Snowball’s words: “It just ain’t gonna happen!”

On most topics, this claim will indeed be true, or at leasthighly likely. Resolutions tend to focus on controversial changes to the statusquo, the sort of thing that hasn’t already happened and isn’t likely to happen.Exceptions exist of course, such as the Nov-Dec ’15 topic focusing on jurynullification and the Nationals ’19 topic on violent revolution, both practicesthat have occurred throughout history. By and large, though, the statement “Itjust ain’t gonna happen!” will ring true most of the time.

But why is it relevant? Why does this fact, if pointed out,make the resolution un-affirmable? The short answer is, it doesn’t. Whether aplan is likely to pass has no intrinsic bearing whatsoever on whether it oughtto pass. In fact, there’s a term for assuming a connection between the two: theis-ought fallacy. An action being likely does not prove it right, and anaction being unlikely does not prove it wrong. To take an example from aprevious article of mine concerning fiat:[4]

“Consider the following exchange among two non-debaters:

A: ‘You should stop murdering people.’
B: ‘Well, it just ain’t gonna happen!’ "

I think it should be obvious that B’s defense would notstand up in either a court of law or of public opinion. The fact that B isunwilling to end their killing spree is no defense against the claim that theyshould. The exchange did not occur in a debate round, so there’s no debatetheory considerations like ground or fairness to appeal to. On the theoreticalaccount of fiat, B should be considered correct. B has presented the knock-downargument that allegedly threatens essentially all resolutions, and A doesn’thave recourse to theory arguments to dispatch it with.

And yet, nearly everyone naturally agrees that A is correct.B’s argument doesn’t sound devastating to A’s claim or even germane to thediscussion. It’s simply not a defense at all. I’ve presented scenarios likethese to many novice debaters who haven’t even heard of the term “fiat,” andthey reach the right conclusion with ease. They are not aware of any debateconvention prohibiting B’s argument; they just don’t find it persuasive, asrightly they shouldn’t—it’s the is-ought fallacy.

What I believe this example demonstrates is that fiat is notproperly conceived of as a debate convention at all. The rationale does notcome from debate theory—that there exists some unbeatable argument that must bebracketed off for productive debates to occur—but rather from the nature of theresolution itself. Almost all resolutions express normative statements, andsuch “ought” statements can’t be affirmed or negated with claims of “will” or“won’t.”

Some affirmative debaters argue that they defend theresolution but “don’t defend implementation.” The argument is rarely clearlyexplained, but as best I can tell they mean something along the lines of “Idefend that the resolution is true, but I won’t use ‘fiat’ to cause it to pass,so the negative consequences of the resolution are irrelevant as they willnever actually occur.” Insofar as the basis for fiat flows from the nature ofthe resolution itself, the “no implementation” view almost never makes sense.Fiat is not an optional debate convention, so the affirmative cannot opt toignore it. A debater not defending a ‘fiated’ action simply is not defendingthe resolution because the large majority of resolutions are normativestatements about action.

Although I find this conclusion patently obvious, very manydebaters and coaches still talk about fiat, perhaps unintentionally, as if itwere a theory rule akin to topicality, conditionality, or disclosure theory.Fiat is more analogous to the principle that arguments need warrants, thatauthors ought to be qualified, or that studies should control for potentialconfounding variables. All are true principles that apply to debate rounds, butthey’re true by virtue of being correct principles of good argumentation in anycontext, not because they happen to make competitive debate events run moresmoothly.

To illustrate the potential confusion from the conflation ofthese two types of norms, I’ve described an example of a norm that is obviouslysubstantive in nature—the norm that disadvantages must have warranted internallinks—as if it were a theoretical norm, much like many coaches and students describefiat:

“The internal link requirement (ILR) is an important theoretical parameter. Coaches and debaters agree that the negative should be forbidden from presenting disadvantages with key internal links missing. Without this norm, all debate would come to a screeching halt. The negative could bombard the affirmative with a slew of unbeatable internal link-less disadvantages. They could cut straight to very large impacts, allowing a strategic edge in weighing. Such strategies are clearly unfair and uneducational and would become rampant without the critical norm of ILR.”

The claims in the above paragraph should strike anyone whohas participated in competitive debate as downright silly. We do not currentlyinculcate in students the idea that lacking an internal link is a rulesviolation, and we don’t need to. The reason students have no incentive to skipkey internal links is that such a disadvantage would be incredibly weak andlogically fallacious and would lose substantively on the flow, no theory required.As a community, we could impose a redundant ILR rule on top of the existingsubstantive disincentives, but why add the theoretical confusion? In anysituation where the theory norm fails to overlap with the substantive reasonsnot to skip internal links, we should be skeptical of whether it’s fulfillingits function of preserving logically sound debate. And yet that seems to beessentially what has occurred with fiat. The debate community has adopted anamorphous theoretical conception of fiat that often departs from the logicalbasis on which fiat rests.

C. The Conclusion of Fiat

The theoretical conception of fiat errs at a second level.Because the debate community has concocted a false threat of negative debaterswinning countless ballots on flagrant violations of the is-ought fallacy, ithas concocted an equally silly solution: assuming the affirmative will actuallyoccur. The negative wins, for some reason, if it is true that the affirmativeadvocacy just won’t happen. Therefore, the correct remedy, according to thetheoretical view, is to simply assume that the plan will in fact happen if theaffirmative wins, rendering the argument moot.

No such solution is needed. The discussion of the precedingsection should demonstrate the misguidedness of this way of thinking. Theappropriate solution to “it just ain’t gonna happen” is not to assume, falsely,that it is gonna happen; it’s to recognize, correctly, that whether it’s gonnahappen is irrelevant to whether it ought to happen. The affirmative has noburden to prove that their policy will actually pass, only that it ought to, somaking a counterfactual assumption that the resolution will literally come intobeing is entirely superfluous. Worse still, this assumption has led to a numberof deep-rooted and widespread misconceptions about the function of fiat indebate rounds.

Take for instance, the common refrain from negative debatersthat “fiat is illusory,” a jargon-laden way to more efficiently say “theaffirmative has falsely assumed that voting affirmative is somehow causallyconnected to plan passage, but it isn’t.” This argument is a strawperson. Noreasonable affirmative debater should assume that any single debate round hasany tangible effect on policies outside of it. Nor do they need to, as they aremerely arguing about what ought to happen. The argument gains artificialtraction because many affirmative debaters do view fiat as a license to pretendthat the plan literally passes, at which point the “fiat is illusory” argumentwould cease to be a strawperson. “No, it won’t” is indeed a correct response to“the plan will pass if you vote affirmative.” Affirmatives choosing to argue thatwe should “role-play” as policy makers who actually have control overlegislation only feed criticisms from negative debaters who find thosehypotheticals unrealistic and flawed.

Why do debaters feel the need to claim that they arerole-playing in the first place? Against the potential negative argument that“the plan will never happen, which means you should negate the resolution,”they seem to wrongly assume that it is the first clause that must be attackedrather than the second. Of course most resolutions will never pass. Arguingthat they will or that that we ought to pretend they will is unrealistic andopen to valid criticisms. But such arguments are also unnecessary because it isthe second part of the argument that is false. One doesn’t need to be apolicymaker to deem a policy desirable or undesirable, nor does one need tohave any control over that policy’s passage at all. Any informed citizen (ornon-citizen) can argue that a policy should be implemented, no matterwhether it will or not.

This year’s list of potential topics includes an examplethat illustrates this point effectively—“Resolved: Japan ought to amend Article9 of its constitution to allow for offensive military capabilities.” The claimthat we ought to role-play as policymakers looks even sillier than normal in anon-US context. Why should American high school students pretend to be Japanesepoliticians? It’s a fair wager to say that no high school Lincoln-Douglasdebater will ever grow up to be a member of the Japanese Diet. But the factthat no debaters will have any actual control over Japanese military policydoes not prevent them from debating or reaching informed conclusions about saidpolicies. Any person willing to do the research can learn about the pros andcons of article 9, formulate an opinion on it, and make arguments for oragainst it. That’s all the topic requires. If the affirmative proves that thepolicy ought to pass, they win. Whether it will is immaterial.

Somewhat related to criticisms of “role-playing” as thegovernment, another criticism negatives often levy against affirmatives is thatadvocating for a state policy in some way involves defending the legitimacy ofthe state because it assumes a propensity for the state to do the right thing.Again, this argument is a strawperson, or it would be if most affirmativedebaters did not spot the negative the faulty assumption on which itrests.  On the theoretical conception offiat, the function of fiat is to allow affirmatives to suspend disbelief in thewillingness of the government to pass the correct (according to theaffirmative) policy—in the words of Wikipedia, to “imagine” it into being.Affirmative debaters seem to think that an intrinsic part of affirmative apolitical action is believing—or at least pretending to believe—that thegovernment actually will pass the policy. And here the negative criticism gainssome traction in claiming that it is unwise to make such assumptions about thegovernment.

But as we’ve seen, the assumption that the resolutional policyhas any likelihood of passing is entirely unnecessary, and the affirmative hasno strong grounds for making it. The affirmative is only rendering a shouldjudgment and taking no stance on the would. Believing that thegovernment will never pass the desired policy is entirely compatible with thebelief that it ought to. In fact, it’s hard to see how one could possiblycriticize the government without making any should claims about it. Anytime one offers an example of a harmful policy that they believe is wrong,they’re asserting a normative belief about state action, the same way that theaffirmative is when affirming the resolution. One could hold the entirelypessimistic view that the government has a 0% chance of passing some ethicalpolicy but still believe that it ought to. Believing that there are actionsthat the government ought to do but is not doing would seem to be an essentialpart of the belief that the government is an unethical institution, especiallyif those actions are ones aimed at reducing the power or scope of stateauthority. And merely claiming that those policies represent the right courseof action in no way commits one to claiming that the state is likely to passthem or otherwise defending the state in that regard.

Of course, some policies inherently seem to involve a tacitaffirmation of the existence of the government or similar institutions.Lincoln-Douglas topics have covered proposals such as universal healthcare,military conscription, and universal basic income. A helpful litmus test foridentifying such topics might be asking whether “The United States ought todissolve itself” is an advocacy that is competitive with the resolution(replacing “United States” with the relevant agent on non-US topics). Defendingthese policies probably relies on a notion that the government can and shouldplay an active role in creating and enforcing policy.

But many policies—especially most of the most recentones—point directly in the opposite direction. In the past year, topics havecalled on the affirmative to argue that the United States ought not providemilitary aid to authoritarian regimes (Jan/Feb ’19) or subsidies to fossil fuelcompanies (Nov/Dec ’19), that colleges ought not consider entrance exams(Sep/Oct ’19), and that states in general ought not possess nuclear arsenals(Jan/Feb ’20). It is hard to see how believing any of these statements commitsone to affirming the legitimacy of the institutions being described. Quite thereverse, in fact. On these topics, it is the negative making the tacitpro-government assumptions. Claiming that it is not the case that the UnitedStates ought not provide fossil fuel subsidies commits one to thinking that USprovision of subsidies is good (or at least permissible). Someone wanting to defendthe radical position that all United States policies are unethical or that theUnited States government ought not exist must surely agree with the resolutionmore than its negation on these topics. The affirmative says that at least onefederal policy is bad; the negative says at least one federal policy is notbad. Arguing that all policies are bad is clearly more consistent with theformer position. In fact, if one debater argued that the United States ought todissolve itself entirely, fossil fuel subsidies and all, that would strike meas a clearly topical affirmative advocacy, not an argument against affirming—itwould involve the affirmative eliminating fossil fuels.

Nonetheless, I have judged or observed a staggering numberof rounds where the affirmative argues against the existence of some governmentinstitution and then is accused by the negative of “defending the state.” Theaffirmative criticizes the government, and the negative also criticizes thegovernment, but somehow they do not view themselves as aggressively agreeingwith each other. The underlying confusion seems to rest on a misconception ofwhat is involved in “fiating” a policy. The affirmative in these debates oftenmakes claims about the desirability of working within oppressive structures tochange them from the inside, and the negative usually takes itself to be acriticism of this sort of claim, arguing instead that it is better not toengage them at all. If the affirmative knows that the negative’s centralargument is that state institutions are undesirable and that no part of theresolution requires endorsing this claim, it would seem strategically imprudentfor the affirmative to insert a link for the negative where none existed byclaiming that part of voting affirmative means endorsing institutions orworking within them. So why do affirmatives jump to defend this claim? My bestguess is that most debaters view this stance as being an inherent part of“fiating” a resolution. It isn’t.

Affirming a statement about the obligations of thegovernment only entails taking a stance on what the government should do, notwhat individuals should do about the government. For example, someone whostrongly believed Andrew Yang to be the best 2020 presidential candidate butalso believed that Downs’ Paradox[5] providesa rational argument against voting could simultaneously think: (A) Andrew Yangought to win the 2020 election, but (B) individuals ought not bother turning upto polls because their vote can’t swing the election, making voting a waste oftime. Of course, one could also think that Andrew Yang is the best candidateand that that belief is a strong motivation for turning out to vote. The pointis that a stance on the government doesn’t entail any specific belief about howindividuals should relate to the government.

The same is true in resolutional contexts. One could believethat military aid to authoritarian regimes is a terrible policy that ought tobe ended (the claim the affirmative was asked to make on the Jan/Feb ’19 topic)and also believe that United States military policy is unresponsive to activistdemands, making publicly lobbying against it thereby unproductive. Theaffirmative is not tied to believing that the government should be engagedwith, role-played as, or otherwise affirmed by individuals merely by arguingthat one government policy is preferable to another. Returning to the murdererexample, making the obvious claim that “murderers ought to stop murdering andturn themselves in” does not commit one to affirming murderers, role-playing asa murderer, or otherwise defending that the existence of murderers isdesirable. Likewise, I assume a topic of “Resolved: Nazi Germany was wrong toinvade Poland” would strike most as obviously correct, not obviously wrong. Butif the arguments often forwarded in debate rounds are to be believed, affirmingthe above statement somehow implies that the Nazi government was legitimate andthat individuals ought to work within it. When the agent described in the topicis more distant, I think it becomes clearer why taking a stance on therightness or wrongness of a particular course of action implies neither ofthose assumptions.

Affirmative debaters seem to view themselves as tied todefending government engagement because something about the rule of “fiat”requires them to make artificial assumptions about the likelihood of governmentpolicy passing and defending this counterfactual assumption entails defendingthe desirability of roleplaying as a policymaker or otherwise viewing oneselfas having some ability to influence state policy. And this is where the wholeargument goes awry. Fiat is nothing more than the view that the is-oughtfallacy is indeed a fallacy, i.e. that whether the resolution oughtto be passed does not hinge on whether it is likely. Fiat does notrequire the affirmative to explain why the policy is likely to pass or why theaffirmative debater has any influence over its passage; fiat is precisely thereason why the affirmative does not need to make such assumptions.

A lingering tension might remain for people see asurface-level contradiction in the affirmative standing up in a debate round toargue for a policy without at least taking an implicit stance that engaging inpolitical advocacy is worthwhile. After all, is that not what they are doing?But the tension is not any deeper than surface-level. It seems unlikely thatthe main reason why any debater is passionately arguing for the resolution intheir affirmative constructive is that they genuinely believe the resolutionand want to change the hearts and minds of the judge, opponent, and spectators.Perhaps they do believe fossil fuel subsidies ought to be eliminated, but thatdoes not explain why they are affirming the topic. After all, they will go intothe next round and passionately argue against it when they are assigned tonegate, and when the topic changes they will passionately argue for some otherpolicy. Those choices would make little sense if the main goal were togenuinely persuade others of a change in policy; they would be shootingthemselves in the foot in the half of all rounds where they argue against theirpreferred policy. When the topic is pre-assigned and the debaters argue bothsides of it, there is no reason to think a debater’s arguments for theirassigned side represent a genuine attempt at political advocacy.

A better explanation for why debaters affirm whenaffirmative and negate when negative is that they see value in debating theirassigned side of the topic (because switch-side topical debate is best forprocedural fairness, limited dialogue, research skills, or some other reason).Whether their belief that topical debate is the best model is correct is besidethe point. The point is merely that affirming the topic when asked to does notcommit one to making the assumption that the content of the topic is correct orimportant or that politically advocating for it (“working within the system”) iscorrect or worthwhile. The affirmative might just as well view the topic as aproposition that provides an equal division of ground and research fordetermining the better debater but otherwise have no investment in the subjectmatter. And if that is true (and it does seem like the most likely motivationmost of the time), then the negative is wrong to assume that the affirmative’s“advocacy” of the topic in a debate round implies anything about thedesirability of advocating for that policy outside of debate rounds any morethan checkmating the king in chess implies assumptions about the desirabilityof regicide.

When the topic happens to be a non-governmental agent (e.g.the recent topic about colleges), almost every affirmative case focuses on whatthat agent should do. Debaters abandon any attempt to focus the debate ongovernmental policy. The best explanation is that debaters are not affirmingresolutions about state action because they have any necessary investment incausing policies to pass but because they are invested in following the rule oftopicality, whatever the topic happens to say, and the topic happens to say“Resolved: The Unites States ought to…” most of the time. If the topic focusedon a non-state agent and the affirmative chose to disregard the topic and spendtheir speech on state-based political advocacy anyway, one might start to makesome strong assumptions about the affirmative’s beliefs on the importance ofpolitical advocacy, but this trend is not one I have witnessed in debaterounds.

So, “fiat” means nothing more than ignoring the likelihoodof policy passage (because it is irrelevant to the truth of the topic). Makinga counterfactual assumption that a vote for the affirmative in some way leadsto a change in policy is in no way necessary for meaningful debate on thetopic. “Fiating” a policy means nothing more than acknowledging that the topicis a normative statement, not a descriptive one. The topic generally does notposit that institutions are good, nor does defending its truth in a competitivedebate round entail the belief that working within institutions is good.Affirmative debaters who claim to “role-play” as policymakers actually changingpolicy are making more assumptions than they need to in order to affirm theresolution. It is my view that such arguments inadvertently bolster negativecriticisms of state action by filling in the link that was formerly missing:that there is some intrinsic connection between affirming the topic andaffirming the desirability of engagement with the government. Against anaffirmative debater who does not make such superfluous assumptions, suchcriticisms miss the mark as they neither disprove the topic nor any necessaryassumption the opponent makes by affirming it.

D. Conclusion

I will conclude by spelling out my view of fiat and itsrelationship to the topic more explicitly. Fiat is not a convention invented bydebaters to improve the quality of rounds in the way that “conditionality,” forexample, is an artificial assumption meant to improve the stability of negativeadvocacy for the purposes of debate despite having no innate logical basis.Fiat is merely helpful debate jargon for describing an antecedently-existingprinciple of argumentation, in the same way that “uniqueness” is nothing morethan helpful debate jargon for describing an argument that would make equalsense outside of debate rounds and without the jargon (that for an impact thatwill occur equally regardless of the course of action is not offense for or againstthe action). Fiat is purely a substantive matter and need not be anything more.In contrast to the theoretical view, I would summarize the substantive view asfollows:

(1) Justification: The debate topicis a normative statement (generally, an ought or should) ratherthan a statement of fact; therefore,

(2) Conclusion: It is not relevantwhether the affirmative policy is likely to pass, only whether it ought to.

“Imagining” the affirmative advocacy into being might be ahelpful thought experiment for debaters wanting to more clearly envision theimpacts of both sides, but it is nothing more than that. Neither the judge ordebaters needs to make any actual or counterfactual assumption that votingaffirmative makes the policy more likely to occur. Voting affirmative merelyacknowledges that the policy ought to be passed, whether likely or not, andthus that the affirmative has fulfilled their burden to prove the normativestatement of the resolution.

---

[1]This article in many places references “policies” and “plans” because the mainfocus of a majority of topics is on governmental actions, but the same thesiswill apply to any topic that makes a normative statement about an agent takingan action, whether that agent is a government or not. As I will argue, the onlyessential requirement for fiat to apply to a topic is that it be normative innature, usually signified by the use of a term like ought or should.

[2]David Snowball. “Theory and Practice in Academic Debate.” A Reference Guide.Third Edition, 1994.http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/theory_and_practice_in_academic_.htm

[3]Wikipedia. “Glossary of Policy Debate Terms.” Date Accessed: 7 November 2019.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_policy_debate_terms#Fiat

[4]Jacob Nails. “The Scope of Fiat: A Response to O’Krent by Jacob Nails.”VBriefly. 2014.https://www.vbriefly.com//2014/08/23/the-scope-of-fiat-a-response-to-okrent-by-jacob-nails/

[5]Downs’ Paradox holds that self-interested citizens have no reason to votebecause the chances of one’s own ballot being the deciding vote in a nationalelection is infinitesimally small, so essentially any drawback, howevertrivial, will outweigh the benefits, e.g. merely the value of time saved notheading to the polls would be larger. My point is not to endorse non-voting (orAndrew Yang for President, for that matter); the example merely represents ahypothetical set of arguments one could make.

Fighting for a Place in the Room by Sophie Blake

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Victory Briefs.

Sophie Blake is a trans LD debater from a small school who loves teaching and giving younger debaters access to opportunities, and coaches several small school or independent debaters. Sophie values the scholastic value of debate and encourages debaters to become authors and methodological activists both inside and outside of debate rounds. Sophie emphasizes diverse and creative argumentation, and an increased communal prioritization and student awareness of the implications of community practices then the competitive nature of debate as an activity. Don't hesitate to reach out to Sophie if you have questions about debate or need a friend in the debate community.  

---

CW: Transphobia, Mental Health

---

Iscream into my lungs

asthey lift outward

flyinghigher

stillunheard

orrather unheeded

---

It’sa familiar sight: “the lecture hall, packed full of people, erupted withapplause as the timer from the 2ar went off. Within seconds, the front of theroom became saturated with swarms of coaches and competitors.” However, withanalysis you recognize these debaters are all “males”, and notice the women areleft in the audience.[1]

Thefirst question is “What is wrong with this image?” Why weren’t women there tojoin the men.

Nextcomes: what is wrong with that paragraph? What happens to the trans people whoare male-presenting, to pass in their communities, can’t or don’t want totransition, etc.? Are they assumed men?

Whathappens to the trans[2] persontapping on the glass outside of the room? Do they remain unheard, unnoticed?

Perlman’sarticle talks about how the bro culture permits constant acts of sexism, whichresults in exclusion of womxn. While this is true, I would maintain there is asimilar cis culture that perpetuates microaggressive transphobia.

However,these concerns remain unheard from the rest of the community. Lindsey describescis womxn as being in the back of the room. However, drawing from thatmetaphor, trans people aren’t even in that room in the first place. In order toreceive conscious thought, to not have our pronouns assumed, to have a place tosurvive in the first place, we need to spread our voices. Without growing support,trans individuals’ plights are ignored.

Transpeople are currently invisible in the debate community because (1) their voicesare silenced by current conceptions of debate as a “Competitive Activity” thatignore accessibility, (2) microaggressive discourse makes the space unsafe, anddiscourages trans participation, (3) cisnormative feminist movements ignore andincrease several trans-specific problems within debate. To prove this, thisarticle will outline and analyze these issues through specific examples, andprovide solutions.

---

Silence!This Activity is Competitive!

Conventionaldebate is fundamentally hierarchical, there is an economy of ballots, yourequire a certain number of ballots to get to outrounds. You pay to go totournaments to get more ballots. Debaters and their arguments earn prestigebased on how far they get in tournaments and how many bids they collect.Coaches advertise their career bids, and the number of bids they’ve coacheddebaters to receive, in order to get hired. This falls under the label“Competitive Activity.” However, people use this label to justify severalthings that actively harm debate being a competitive activity. If debate beinga good competitive activity was the goal, structural fairness would becomeincredibly important to avoid certain teams dominating that competitiveactivity and crowding out talented debaters from new schools or deviantidentity groups. However, what instead follows is debaters separating fairnessinto procedural and structural and prioritizing the former to win theorydebates.

WhileResource Disparities is an issue, it isn’t the focus. This is just an exampleof how ballots explicitly and implicitly endorse certain norms. Whenever youvote for a theory shell that frames the round as only caring about proceduralfairness, even if you intentionally only desire to endorse Conditionality bad,you implicitly endorse framing fairness without accounting for structuralfairness. A more egregious example I’ve come across is when someone wins adebate on the flow despite saying problematic slurs and misgendering theiropponent. Sure, the judge votes them up because they won the disadvantage, butthat judge is also allowing that behavior, making the activity less accessible.

Thisover time results in a buildup of implicitly and explicitly endorsed norms thatmake trans debaters invisible. We trans people aren’t even considered asexisting in the debate space, because we don’t have enough representationgenerally or with ballots. This materializes in community norms and eventournament rules being exclusionary to trans people. For example, disclosuretheory has become almost an undisputed rule, and open source disclosure seemsto be on its way to becoming the same. This is because of judges who vote forthese theory arguments, while ignoring the consequences of dueer[3] outingthrough open source disclosure, even when it’s brought up in round. Even worseis tournament organizers, who sometimes even frame their tournament’s asprogressive and pro-LGBTQ+, are making open source of narratives andperformances a rule. I have contacted several of these tournaments asking abouttheir disclosure policies to avoid critical information being posted online,but never received a response. This forces pers to publicly out perselves inorder to compete at these tournaments, and not doing so denies them morealready limited opportunities to achieve success in this “Competitive Activity”in the form of a bid. Also, this results in a chilling effect on performancesthat call out problematic actions or actors within the community.

---

What Happens to the Few Trans Debaters in our Debate Communities?

Asdebaters continue to conflate women with female and man with male inside andoutside of rounds, this discourse reifies a gender binary, that erases theexistence of transgender debaters. The implication is, you can’t be a womxn ifyou were born as a male-passing and you can’t be a man if you were born asfemale passing. Not only does this completely encode over the existence ofintersex, non-binary, and multi-gender people[4],but also helps reinforce toxic notions in society writ large that contribute tointernalized gender dysphoria and self-loathing.

The‘good debater’ problem [5]reifiesthis cycle, because not only are trans folx left with few ‘good debaters’ astrans role models, but status quo “good debater” behavior informs other cisdebaters to adopt the same transphobic microaggressions they never had toaccount for. Lack of compassion or realization of misgendering only continuesto permeate the community.

Forexample, Judges often put on their paradigm that racist, sexist, homophobicarguments etc. are an instant loss. However, despite this, I and other transdebaters who call their opponents out on misgendering, have recognized lots ofjudges have odd misgendering brightlines that result in the judge dismissingit, is two times too many? Five? Ten? Additionally, many cis debaters use theirin round or after round apology to shift the guilt. I’ve been told by myopponent’s teammate that I should feel guilty for making per cry by calling per[3] outfor misgendering me.

Toadd on to my previous criticism of how debate being a “Competitive Activity” isleveraged, I also have a criticism of how tabula rasa is framed by judges. Thisisn’t to say having a judge attempt to be unbiased from their own opinionsabout politics or which side of the resolution is true is a bad thing. However,the way Tech>Truth is leveraged repeatedly doesn’t lead to actual productionof good norms. The classic example being, better theory debaters can readextremely abusive positions and destroy novices. But more importantly,positions like discourse criticisms should require using your own philosophy tonot vote for debaters who said R***** because they win 1ar font size theory.Before judges’ default to philosophical notions like pain being bad on a utilflow, or fairness is important because everyone will quit debate over a singleconditional counterplan, they should bring their paradigm as an educator intothe round. That means that any microaggressive behavior should be dealt withfirst because it can actively harm the other debater through verbal violence,make the space toxic and less accessible, and prevent debate from becoming asafe competitive environment for the rest of their lives. When these concernsare ignored for the sake of a “Competitive Activity,” that pedagogicallyjustifies doing anything for the ballot, and thus behaviors as egregious asdebaters blackmailing their opponents. In fact, under status quo paradigms, itis competitively advisable to intentionally misgender your opponent in front ofa “tab” judge to throw them off. Judges have a responsibility to promote a safeand equal space beyond anything else, as a prerequisite to have a debate.Because of this, judges should be much more receptive to theoretical,philosophical, or Kritikal arguments that deal with accessibility, survivalstrategies, and discourse relative to in-round procedural questions, orsubstance arguments.

Allof these culminating factors result in a culture where the trans womxn neveraccesses the debate room as a debater; we are always at least one foot out ofthe room. However, not only is the trans womxn not in the debate room itself,these pedagogical choices also inform debate’s feminist movements. Whichresults in the disconnect this article reveals.

Ona recent tournament weekend that was heralded as a big win for gender equality,I was dealing with one of my worst weekends in the activity. 6 opponentsmisgendered me a total of around 200 times, one achieving a new record of 72times in 3 minutes at the same tournament. How could we have such a differencein experience?

---

StatisticalExclusion

Hereare two studies that could potentially provide an answer.

1. http://www.vbriefly.com//2016/05/12/gendergapshin/

“Icollected my data from tabroom.com andincluded 24 bid tournaments from the 2015–2016 season. I will continue to addmore tournaments and possible more variables to my data set. I recorded schoolnames, debater’s names, pre-elimination records, elimination records, andspeaker-points. I was able to generate a list of genders from camp attendancesheets, Facebook, and websites that determine gender from names.

Igenerated this first graph by plotting seed frequency by gender. Thisgraph shows that males consistently have better seeding than females, as theblue line, which represents males, is more towards the left than the red line,which represents females. Based on this graph alone, we can extrapolate thatmale debaters perform better than female debaters.”

Notonly does this study conflate girls with females and boys with males to thedetriment of transgender humans but data is collected based on determininggender from name only. This is not only a bad practice for determining genderof cis people–i.e. the author herself didn’t know where to put Jordan — but isincredibly problematic when applied to trans people who often retain names thatdo not match their gender identities.

2. https://www.vbriefly.com//2016/05/15/new-evidence-on-gender-disparities-in-competitive-high-school-lincoln-douglas-debate/#_ftn1

“SinceTabroom allows but does not require coaches to indicate the gender of debatersor judges, about 21% of observations for debaters and 50% for judges areinitially missing gender labels. I adopt three strategies to assign genders tomissing observations. First, I use 1990 Census data containing about 5,500common baby names. The Census data corresponds to people who were 25 years oldin 2015, which is a reasonable approximation for judges (who are often collegeor graduate students) as well as debaters. In cases where the same name appearsin both the male and female Census lists, I assign the more common genderassociated with the name. Second, I merge the Tabroom data with a list ofcommon names of South Asian origin I found on Github, a website whereprogrammers and researchers can share code and datasets. Third, I manually assigngender in what I believe are clear-cut cases [6].After the three procedures, 99% of debaters and 96% of judges have assignedgenders. The vast majority of the improvement is due to the official Censusdata.”

Weagain encounter the common theme of conflating sex and gender, and it’s thesame problematic study route based on names and Census predictions. None ofwhich is surprising because they were related studies, but disappointing sincethey are the only major study of gender disparities in high school LincolnDouglas that I’ve found. After looking a little closer though, you find thefirst footnote.

“Inthis paper, gender refers most closely to gender identity. See footnote 1 ofthe full paper for a more detailed explanation of the construction of thegender variable.”

Onlyfor the first footnote to say the following:

“Thedata does not distinguish between biological sex and gender identity. It isprobably safe to interpret summary statistics as applicable to either a“biological sex gap” or a “gender gap” given the small size of the populationwhose biological sex and gender identity differ, but there is no way to knowthis with certainty. Moreover, I exclude observations where gender is labeled“Other” due to concerns about reporting accuracy and sample size.”

Inother words: the research says sex and gender is the same, but the discussionof the “gender gap” still refers to gender identity, and it’s probably safe tosay that none of the non-binary or male passing trans folx gender experienceschange discussions of gender. Regardless it’s hard to study gay people.

Whilethis interpretation might seem a bit harsh, it’s clear that there is absolutelyno desire to paint a picture that includes trans womxn, given that the entirefootnote is about justifying how it wouldn’t scew the overall results of ciswomxn that much because of how insignificant trans womxn are to the data pool.

It’snearly impossible to empirically analyze discrimination against trans debatersbecause we barely exist in the activity: trans debaters’ numbers rapidlydwindle from harassment, and few of us are out as trans. But it is far moreproblematic to conclude, (as several cis people have encouraged me andthemselves too), that there aren’t also many others closeted or not whoexperience violence for their trans identities in debate just as I do. Usingnumbers as an excuse for a lack of consideration is an attempt to gaslighttrans debaters to avoid cis guilt.

---

CisnormativeFeminist Movements

Asshown, cis feminist movements in debate often lack an understanding ormotivation to deal with trans specific problems. However, some feministmovements in debate become not just unaligned with trans goals, but directlyharmful when they endorse toxic ideas around passing. I previously criticizedinterchanging male=man and female=women, but when this distinction is not madeby ladable feminists within the debate community and progressive groups andinstitutions, the result is not just feminist movements in the debate spacerecreating the same toxicity. In fact, when progressive institutions performacts of gendered violence this can result in a feeling of validation ofinternalized trauma.

Forexample, when I find a website for womxn in debate, and see thisinterchangeable use, I immediately reach out to members I’m acquainted with tosee if it’s a safe space for trans people. Someone still questioning theirgender identity or new to the community, might internalize that if progressiveinstitutions agree male=man, then they must not be trans. Even if theyrecognize this as a microaggression, they are likely to see this organizationand potentially debate as unsafe. In fact, if it wasn’t for me knowing andcontacting one of the students on their staff to ask about the environment,there are several instances where I would not have worked with theseorganizations.

Similarly,the way cis Feminist Kritikal Affirmatives are often performed in the debatespace is problematic. Saying the word trans womxn twice in the 1AC while notreading a single trans author or talking about how the 1AC affects trans womxnin any distinct way besides “gender equality,” isn’t enough to say yourfeminism is intersectional or supports trans womxn. Increasingly debaters havejust been sprinkling trans tokenism [7] intheir 1ACs for the sake of a 1AR permutation. In general, these kinds ofintersectionality perms should be held to a higher standard, because if thisblippy intersectionality [8]isn’trewarded with ballots, it will stop being strategic, and people will readKritikal affirmatives that consider specific experiences. Alternatives likeframing the aff as a transfeminist aff [9] basedon solving trans issues with intersectional spillover or an AC thatacknowledges that it works for cis womxn specifically are much better.

Thistrans tokenism by debaters in round, and cis feminist institutions isincredibly harmful. It presents the illusion of trans issue’s being dealt with,and prevents creation of trans-inclusive organizations with a similar purpose.

---

Solutions

However,despite all this we shouldn’t give up on our ability to recreate this “debatespace”.

Eventhough ideally adult members in the community would take the lead in fixingthese issues, they haven’t and many likely won’t until it picks up momentum.However, trans students are uniquely positioned to turn the often problematic“good debater” modelling on its head. Rather than justifying good debatersgetting away with bad behavior, trans debaters should fight to acquire this platformin order to act as trans models and speak out to change the community.

Currentdebaters and first year outs are also uniquely significant because of ourcurrent positionality within the community. more debaters should write articlesabout their experiences in debate to promote discussion and create newdebate-specific evidence the community can use. This is uniquely importantbecause when doing research for writing this there were only 7 articles aboutwomxn in Lincoln Douglas debate with two explicitly conflating gender andbiological sex. Only two mentioned trans womxn, and SunHee Simon’s was the onlyone that outlined potential solutions.

Inorder to avoid microaggressions we need to make all debaters aware of theirdiscourse. We should place specific focus on the creation of new transfeministmovements. Trans role models are key to showing trans people that they cansurvive and thrive in this space, as well as forcing cis people to acknowledgethe presence of trans debaters to avoid transphobic practices and cut downmicroaggressions. While these movements should be predominantly led by transmodels due to their awareness and understanding of microaggressions, I think wecan and must use established feminist organizations.

Thiswould entail 1. Getting rid of cisnormative discourse such as conflation ofgender and sex, inside and outside of debate rounds. 2. Creating spacesexplicitly for non-cis men as opposed to explicitly for cis women. This can bea way to reframe existing feminist movements in debate. 3. Have at leastpartially trans leadership of these programs, and have all the leadership beexplicitly pro-trans, embracing everyone gender deviant, regardless of theirorigin. Making sure trans voices are guiding the movement is a necessary step toavoid becoming an ad campaign for cis institutions.

Despiterecognizing the risks of intersectionality there are two reasons why I thinkthis approach is valid 1. Trans womxn debaters can’t be crowded out of feministdebate spaces much more than they already are, so adding cis womxn to ourmovement won’t make the situation any worse. 2. Due to risks of outing and thestatus quo silencing of trans identities in the debate space building aninfluential collation between only trans identities that could reshape largeinstitutions would be impossible, especially if cis women work against ourmovement.

Inaddition to increasing trans representation in these communities, people,especially those in progressive feminist institutions, should become moreconscious of per’s gendered language. Interacting with trans individuals canhelp with this, but also recognizing the impact of words, and taking 10 moreminutes to go through your website and correct microaggressions, or reading anarticle about how trans womxn are affected by therapy confidentiality.

Judges:Resulting from my previous criticism of Tabula Rasa the flow should not blindyou to the impact of your ballots. Many are likely to object that this model isidealistic for debaters to not prioritize the ballot above the accessibility ofthe invisible other. However, if you reframe the “role of the ballot” (if youwill) judges should stop giving the ballot to implicitly (or explicitly)endorsing anti-dueerness, racism, sexism etc. That doesn’t mean you have to throwout your “vote for the better debater” paradigm either, but like you wouldn’tconsider a debater who blackmails their opponent with outing a good debater,this framework just provides you even more reason to consider concerns ofaccessibility and structural fairness. Was the person without a coach getmisgendered several times, but still managed to exempt an independent voteragainst their opponent whose coaches wrote out the 1AR and 2AR a betterdebater, even if they dropped the 7th procedural fairness justification ontheir flow while freaking out?

Anymisgendering not followed by an immediate correction within the next 3–5seconds[10] shouldbe enough to warrant a ballot, but more than 5 regardless of immediatecorrection is also too far, because yes people can make a mistake with pronounsbut immediate correction isn’t difficult (if it is then don’t speak at 400WPM), nor is watching oneself for the remainder of the speech/round after asingle mistake, especially when that single instance can haunt a debater for 30minutes or even days, (I myself have the toxic habit of beginning a tallyingcount during their speech, which often leads to me missing arguments because Ionly hear the pronouns). Even if people can’t adapt to someone’s neologism i.e.if they have a disability that makes it impossible to do so, they should trainthemselves to do speeches through saying my opponent, or the aff/neg and lettheir opponent know that they have a speaking or focus accommodation before theround to lessen the impact. Also, if trans debaters feel comfortable doing so,I would advise shouting your gender pronoun [11]wheneverpers misgender you, it doesn’t speak over their speech besides the wrongpronoun, and allows pers to recognize and correct perselves.

Ipreviously argued that cis debaters shouldn’t try to shift guilt to the transpeople they misgender by pressuring the trans debater to accept their apology.However, this doesn’t mean they should gaslight the trans debater and pretendthey never misgendered per. This also isn’t to say that cis people should notfeel guilty for misgendering either. The best response I’ve encountered, is tosincerely apologize, without any snide comments that shift blame, notpretending it didn’t happen, and then regardless of the trans person’sresponse, reflecting on what you did, followed by practicing to not do itagain.

Coaches: 1. Don’t out your student, control information that goes to parents and other students as the dueer student requests, similarly don’t treat them weirdly around other students or they will catch on. 2. Check students’ behavior, encourage them to use neologisms i.e. ze, per, xe to refer to everyone not just the dueer student or students to avoid misgendering closeted students. This also means stopping them from using slurs like f***** to refer to dueer people and monitoring their behavior in rounds against debaters from other schools. And 3. stand up for your students in and out of round. Most importantly stand up to other adults, whether this be the head coach of another school whose debater just engaged in that behavior, it is rare for a coach to be confronted on their behavior because of potential drama leading to losses however that resistance is the only way to unseat these practices.

Tournament organizers: uni-sex bathrooms are always a plus, even if the school doesn’t have one, I would recommend designating a teacher’s restroom as a nonbinary bathroom. There’re few things in debate more emotionally frustrating and invalidating then being misgendered 100 times and then being forced to use a cis bathroom. Don’t make policies that force debaters to out themselves, reach out to trans debaters in the community when implementing a new policy, and listen to pers concerns to modify your policy such that it’s not exclusionary, right now the open source policy is the biggest concern but there have been and will continue to be others I’m sure.

Camps: Place more focus on arguments and diverse groups who don’t have representation in the debate space, as opposed to those that are already constantly sparking conversation and debate, not to say those other categories important, but it is sad to see that stuff like ableism and trans experiences in debate rarely receive discussion because they are by rule put last on the docket.

Toall the trans debaters out there, the advice I was granted could not be truerin my experiences. Even though it can assist in spreading trans voices, don’tforce yourself to do performance debate if you don’t feel comfortable doing so.Even if it’s only way for you to survive in debate, it’s not something thatshould be taken lightly. Performance regarding trans identity, will be adouble-edged sword. You will face misgendering and microaggressions at asimilar or greater rate than when closeted, you will encounter slurs, and allmanner of human selfishness, exploring how many ways debaters can tell you yourpain doesn’t matter. Yet you will find a voice, and be able to speak outagainst these instances, and for that voice, my hands bleeding, I’d gladly gripthe sword again.

---

Descendingnow

Ihear the calling

Ofhundreds of my kin

Flyinghigher still

Makingtheir voices heard.

---

Othernotes:

Womenwas intentionally used in a few points of the article when referring to ciswomen only from the perspective of a gender essentialist, womxn is farpreferable to be used for all womxn including cis womxn and an example of ashift in language this articulate endorses.

Irecognize that some people still find the term “queer” unpalatable, I’m notusing it or dueer as a slur but rather a reclamation and synonym for alldeviant genders, sexes, and sexualities as in Kritikal theory.

Irecommend reading Lindsey Perlman’s article if you haven’t already because itkind of acts as a precursor to this one.

Nooffense is meant to any particular person, I have no idea how this article willbe received, given that people get into flame wars over disclosure on Facebook,but I need to post it for other trans debaters regardless.

---

Footnotes:

[1] Animitation and re-analysis of the intro to Lindsey Perlman’s article “Fightingfor a Place at the Front,” heavily paraphrased even in the none-quoted parts.

[2] I’mnot going to scientifically justify the existence of trans people in thisarticle, go find that elsewhere.

[3] Standsfor disabled kweer and acts as a further elaboration and criticism on “FROM“QUARE” TO “KWEER”: TOWARDS A QUEER ASIAN AMERICANCRITIQUE”, I’ll likely writean article on it in the future so I won’t elaborate beyond that for now.

[4] https://medium.com/@chriscoles_66854/against-biology-against-the-sexed-body-gender-compulsory-heterosexuality-and-the-molecular-8121f0b04ad5 Iagree with a majority of this article in its criticism of biological sex, yetsince most people who are unfamiliar with dueer theory, would have difficultyaccessing an alternate expression without first reading Coles’ article, I willstill use the term.

[5] Ifanyone desires further explanation please leave a comment. There have beenother articles attacking the idea of the ‘good debater’ being someone who winslots of rounds, so I didn’t want to re-invent the wheel and dilute the focus ofmy article.

[6] Notgendered pronoun that replaces person. You can google the conjugation. One ofthe two main pronouns (along with they) I’ve seen other trans people prefer. Ialternate between the two in this article.

[7] Thisalso happens commonly with race.

[8] Thisisn’t to say intersectional affs are bad, but rather those affs have aresponsibility to address each group they claim under their banner during theirspeech individual, and/or use an author’s prior analysis and defend thatspecific author’s intersectionality.

[9] Thisaff can be potentially problematic for cis womxn, I would recommend readingtrans authors who talk about intersectionality, and contacting trans debatersabout it.

[10] I would recommend this article by SunHee Simon https://www.vbriefly.com//2018/01/26/community-resolution-4-gender-in-debate-by-sunhee-simon/#_ftn3~QLSMD, which describes ways to deal with pronouns on an individual level.

[11] Allof this assumes you exchanged pronouns and triggers at the beginning of theround, which is a good norm if you are comfortable doing so.

Genericity on the Standardized Tests Resolution

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Victory Briefs.Jake Nebel is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California and executive director of Victory Briefs. You can email Jake here. 

---

The September–October resolution is “Resolved: In the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions.” As usual, some debaters will try to affirm this resolution by arguing that some particular colleges and universities ought not consider particular standardized tests in particular admissions decisions. As usual, I don’t think such advocacies affirm the resolution.Let me be clear, once again: my argument is not that plans are bad. I do not hate plans; I really like them, and I wish that all resolutions, including this one, were worded to allow for a reasonable array of topical plans. For example, if the resolution said something like, “The United States ought to prohibit some or all public universities from considering standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions,” then it would allow the affirmative to propose a plan to prohibit particular public universities from considering standardized tests. But that’s not the resolution. And I think debaters should debate the actual resolution. Plans are good, but plans should be topical.My argument is simple. First, on this topic, the affirmative should have to argue that, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. This is the topicality rule. Second, even if some particular colleges and universities ought not consider particular tests in particular decisions, that doesn’t mean that colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. Therefore, showing that some particular colleges and universities ought not consider particular tests in particular decisions fails to meet the affirmative burden.This two-premise argument strikes me as eminently reasonable, and I don’t think it should require much more explanation in order to win a debate. But many debaters and judges appear to think that the argument is not just unsound but obviously or embarrassingly so. This response puzzles me, given the intuitive plausibility of the premises. Many of those who reject the argument are reluctant to identify which premise of the argument they reject, and they should have to do that in order to reject the conclusion. But, once again, I will try to defend the premises of the argument in the context of the new topic.Let’s start with the second premise.

1 Bare Plurals

“Colleges and universities,” “standardized tests,” and “undergraduate admissions decisions” are bare plural noun phrases. A bare plural is a noun phrase that lacks an overt determiner. Determiners include articles like the, possessives like my, demonstratives like these, and quantifiers like some. “Colleges and universities,” “standardized tests,” and “undergraduate admissions decisions” are plural, and they lack determiners, so they are bare plurals. (“Colleges” and “universities” are also bare plurals, but it doesn’t matter for our purposes whether we consider them separately or just consider the conjunctive noun phrase.)Bare plurals are typically used to express generic generalizations. Generic generalizations include sentences like, “Dogs bark,” “Bees sting,” and “Birds fly.” It is helpful to understand generic generalizations by contrasting them with two other kinds of generalizations.Existential statements say that there exist some things that satisfy a certain property. For example, “Some bees don’t sting” is an existential statement. It is true because there are indeed some bees that don’t sting. Existential statements can be affirmed by pointing to particular examples—e.g., mason bees.Universal statements say that all things satisfy a certain property. For example, “All bees sting” is a universal statement. It is false because, as we just saw, some bees don’t sting—so it’s not the case that all of them do. Universal statements cannot be affirmed by pointing to particular examples, but they can be negated by pointing to particular counterexamples—again, e.g., mason bees.Generic generalizations are neither existential nor universal.Generics are distinct from existential statements because they cannot be affirmed by particular instances. For example, “Birds swim” is a generic. It’s false even though there are some birds that do swim: namely, penguins. You can’t affirm that birds swim by observing that penguins swim.Generics are distinct from universal statements because they can tolerate exceptions. For example, “Birds fly” is a generic. It’s true even though there are some birds that don’t fly: namely, penguins. You can’t negate that birds fly by observing that penguins don’t.Both distinctions are important. Generic resolutions can’t be affirmed by specifying particular instances. But, since generics tolerate exceptions, plan-inclusive counterplans (PICs) do not negate generic resolutions.Bare plurals are typically used to express generic generalizations. But there are two important things to keep in mind. First, generic generalizations are also often expressed via other means (e.g., definite singulars, indefinite singulars, and bare singulars). Second, and more importantly for present purposes, bare plurals can also be used to express existential generalizations. For example, “Birds are singing outside my window” is true just in case there are some birds singing outside my window; it doesn’t require birds in general to be singing outside my window.So, what about “colleges and universities,” “standardized tests,” and “undergraduate admissions decisions”? Are they generic or existential bare plurals? On other topics I have taken great pains to point out that their bare plurals are generic—because, well, they are. On this topic, though, I think the answer is a bit more nuanced. Let’s see why.

1.1 “Colleges and Universities”

“Colleges and universities” is a generic bare plural. I don’t think this claim should require any argument, when you think about it, but here are a few reasons.First, ask yourself, honestly, whether the following speech sounds good to you: "Eight colleges and universities—namely, those in the Ivy League—ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. Maybe other colleges and universities ought to consider them, but not the Ivies. Therefore, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions." That is obviously not a valid argument: the conclusion does not follow. Anyone who sincerely believes that it is valid argument is, to be charitable, deeply confused. But the inference above would be good if “colleges and universities” in the resolution were existential. By way of contrast: "Eight birds are singing outside my window. Maybe lots of birds aren’t singing outside my window, but eight birds are. Therefore, birds are singing outside my window." Since the bare plural “birds” in the conclusion gets an existential reading, the conclusion follows from the premise that eight birds are singing outside my window: “eight” entails “some.” If the resolution were existential with respect to “colleges and universities,” then the Ivy League argument above would be a valid inference. Since it’s not a valid inference, “colleges and universities” must be a generic bare plural.Second, “colleges and universities” fails the upward-entailment test for existential uses of bare plurals. Consider the sentence, “Lima beans are on my plate.” This sentence expresses an existential statement that is true just in case there are some lima beans on my plate. One test of this is that it entails the more general sentence, “Beans are on my plate.” Now consider the sentence, “Colleges and universities ought not consider the SAT.” (To isolate “colleges and universities,” I’ve eliminated the other bare plurals in the resolution; it cannot plausibly be generic in the isolated case but existential in the resolution.) This sentence does not entail the more general statement that educational institutions ought not consider the SAT. This shows that “colleges and universities” is generic, because it fails the upward-entailment test for existential bare plurals.Third, “colleges and universities” fails the adverb of quantification test for existential bare plurals. Consider the sentence, “Dogs are barking outside my window.” This sentence expresses an existential statement that is true just in case there are some dogs barking outside my window. One test of this appeals to the drastic change of meaning caused by inserting any adverb of quantification (e.g., always, sometimes, generally, often, seldom, never, ever). You cannot add any such adverb into the sentence without drastically changing its meaning. To apply this test to the resolution, let’s again isolate the bare plural subject: “Colleges and universities ought not consider the SAT.” Adding generally (“Colleges and universities generally ought not consider the SAT”) or ever (“Colleges and universities ought not ever consider the SAT”) result in comparatively minor changes of meaning. (Note that this test doesn’t require there to be no change of meaning and doesn’t have to work for every adverb of quantification.) This strongly suggests what we already know: that “colleges and universities” is generic rather than existential in the resolution.Fourth, it is extremely unlikely that the topic committee would have written the resolution with the existential interpretation of “colleges and universities” in mind. If they intended the existential interpretation, they would have added explicit existential quantifiers like “some.” No such addition would be necessary or expected for the generic interpretation since generics lack explicit quantifiers by default. The topic committee’s likely intentions are not decisive, but they strongly suggest that the generic interpretation is correct, since it’s prima facie unlikely that a committee charged with writing a sentence to be debated would be so badly mistaken about what their sentence means (which they would be if they intended the existential interpretation). The committee, moreover, does not write resolutions for the 0.1 percent of debaters who debate on the national circuit; they write resolutions, at least in large part, to be debated by the vast majority of students on the vast majority of circuits, who would take the resolution to be (pretty obviously, I’d imagine) generic with respect to “colleges and universities,” given its face-value meaning and standard expectations about what LD resolutions tend to mean.There are other reasons, too, which I’ll leave for debaters to piece together based on the literature. But, as I said, I don’t think it’s necessary to get into such reasons; when a claim is more obviously correct than the premises of any argument to the contrary, it is reasonable to take it for granted.

1.2 “Standardized Tests” and “Undergraduate Admissions Decisions”

Although “colleges and universities” in the resolution is certainly generic, I am inclined to think that “standardized tests” is not, and I’m not sure about “undergraduate admissions decisions.” To see why, let’s again isolate each bare plural. “Not” will distract us, so let’s also abstract away from the negative wording of the resolution—we’ll bring it back in soon.Consider the sentence, “USC ought to consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions.” Suppose that USC ought to consider the SAT general and subject tests but no other standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. This would, it seems to me, entail that USC ought to consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. This suggests that “standardized tests” is an existential bare plural.Consider next the sentence, “USC ought to consider the SAT in undergraduate admissions decisions.” Suppose that USC ought to consider the SAT in undergraduate admissions decisions for prospective humanities majors but for no one else. It’s not clear to me whether this would entail that USC ought to consider the SAT in undergraduate admissions decisions. So I’m not sure whether “undergraduate admissions decisions” is generic or existential; I’d be curious to know what others think.At this point, you might be getting your hopes up that the affirmative can topically specify standardized tests and, possibly, undergraduate admissions decisions, so long as they specify more than one of each. Before disappointing you, let me build your hopes up even further.Arguably, the “more than one” reading of the resolution’s possibly existential bare plurals is not even necessary. This is because not all existential bare plurals mean “more than one.” A classic example from Chomsky is “Unicycles have wheels.” Obviously this sentence doesn’t say that unicycles have more than one wheel. “Wheels” is dependent for its interpretation on “unicycles,” so it is called a dependent plural. Another example, involving an existential bare plural subject: “Dogs are wagging their tails outside my window.” This sentence is true only if there is more than one dog wagging its tail outside my window, but it doesn’t require any of the dogs to have multiple tails.One might argue that “standardized tests” is a dependent plural with respect to “colleges and universities.” On this view, if the resolution were, “Colleges and universities ought to consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions,” the affirmative would not have to show that colleges and universities ought to consider multiple standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. Now, this wouldn’t necessarily mean that a single-test affirmative would be topical. I hesitate because, in our other examples of dependent plurals, each unicycle has its own wheel, and each dog has its own tail. If all colleges and universities ought to consider the same test, would it be true that colleges and universities ought to consider standardized tests? It’s not obvious to me. Again, I’d be curious to know what others think. For now I’m content to challenge the idea that plurals necessarily mean “more than one” and to raise the question for further research.For present purposes, however, these subtle distinctions don’t matter, because the resolution says “ought not.” Why does this matter? Consider again “Unicycles have wheels.” This sentence means, roughly, that each unicycle has at least one wheel (“roughly” because I’m glossing over the distinction between generic and universal for simplicity). By contrast, consider “Unicycles don’t have wheels.” This sentence means, roughly, that each unicycle has no wheels. It’s not just the logical negation of the original proposition, which would be the following: it’s not the case that, for every unicycle, there’s a wheel that it has—i.e., that some unicycle lacks a wheel.This means that, if “standardized tests” is a dependent plural with respect to “colleges and universities,” the resolution means that colleges and universities not consider any standardized tests. Compare: if the resolution were “Unicycles don’t have wheels,” they would have to argue that unicycles don’t have any wheels, not just that there are some wheels unicycles don’t have (e.g., the wheels on my car). This is because the negation of an existential statement (“it’s not the case that some do”) is a universal statement (“all of them don’t”). This is the observation about quantifier scope I made about the Jan–Feb 2019 resolution, and it applies straightforwardly to the standardized tests topic because of the “ought not” wording. So, if “Colleges and universities ought to consider standardized tests” means roughly that colleges and universities ought to consider at least one standardized test, then the sentence “Colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests” would mean roughly that colleges and universities ought to consider no standardized tests.Crucially, this argument is not specific to dependent plurals. It applies to all existential bare plurals. Consider “Mary saw zebras.” That’s true just in case Mary saw more than one zebra. It means the same thing as “Mary saw some zebras.” By contrast, “Mary didn’t see zebras” is true just in case Mary saw no zebras; it cannot be interpreted to mean merely that there are some zebras Mary didn’t see. It does not mean the same thing as “Mary didn’t see some zebras,” which at least has a reading on which it’s true as long as some of the zebras were unseen by Mary. So, if “Colleges and universities ought to consider standardized tests for undergraduate admissions decisions” means roughly that colleges and universities ought to consider more than one standardized test for undergraduate admissions decisions (or: ought to consider standardized tests for more than one undergraduate admissions decision), then “Colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests for undergraduate admissions decisions” would mean that colleges and universities ought to consider no standardized tests (or: ought to consider standardized tests for no undergraduate admissions decisions.)Here is another example, using a bare plural subject (for those who continue to insist that “colleges and universities” is existential). Suppose I say, “Lima beans are not in the pantry.” You and I are looking in the pantry, and there they are: lima beans. I then point to the floor, and there they are: more lima beans! I say, “See, some lima beans are not in the pantry. Therefore, lima beans are not in the pantry.” The conclusion obviously does not follow. The sentence “Lima beans are not in the pantry” cannot be interpreted to express the true claim that there are lima beans that are not in the pantry (“wide scope”); it means that it’s not the case that there are lima beans—i.e., that there are no lima beans—in the pantry (“narrow scope”). So if, contrary to fact, “Colleges and universities ought to consider standardized tests” means that some colleges and universities ought not consider such tests, then “Colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests” would, contrary to fact, mean that no colleges or universities ought to consider such tests—making it harder to affirm than the correct (generic) interpretation.Summing up: if “colleges and universities” were existential (which it isn’t), the resolution would mean that no colleges or universities ought to consider standardized tests; if “standardized tests” is existential (which I think it probably is), the resolution means that colleges and universities ought to consider no standardized tests; and if “undergraduate admissions decisions” is existential, the resolution means that colleges and universities ought to consider standardized tests for no such decisions.Here is a way to see this point in action. Consider the sentence “In the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions, and colleges and universities ought to consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions.” This sentence expresses a contradiction. But if the resolution meant what our hypothetical affirmative needs it to mean, it should sound perfectly consistent. After all, “In the United States, some colleges and universities ought not consider some standardized tests in some undergraduate admissions decisions, and some (i.e., possibly different) colleges and universities ought to consider some (i.e., possibly different) standardized tests in some (i.e., possibly different) undergraduate admissions decisions” is perfectly consistent. This shows that the resolution could not be interpreted in a way that allows for the specification of colleges, universities, tests, or decisions, even if all of the bare plurals in the resolution were, contrary to fact, existential. At the very least, the onus is on our hypothetical affirmative to explain why the sentence above sounds contradictory if their desired interpretation of the resolution is even possible.

1.3 Summary

We have seen that “colleges and universities” is generic in the context of the resolution. So, even if some colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions, that doesn’t mean that colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. (And, since generics tolerate exceptions, PICs that exclude particular colleges or universities do not negate.)I have also suggested that “standardized tests” is likely an existential (possibly dependent) bare plural. If it is, then, since the resolution says “ought not,” it requires that colleges and universities not consider any such tests. I am unsure whether “undergraduate admissions decisions” is existential or not, but the same argument would apply if it is.So, on any reading of the bare plurals in the resolution, specifying particular colleges and universities, particular tests, or particular decisions could not show that colleges and universities ought not use standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions.

2 Some Objections

I’ve just defended the second premise of my argument. Let’s now consider how affirmatives tend to reply to this premise.

2.1 Pseudo-Counterinterpretations

Affirmatives tend to respond with an interpretation along the lines of, “I can specify colleges/universities/tests/decisions.” That’s not a topicality interpretation, because it’s not an interpretation of the resolution. On the face of it, it allows the affirmative to specify parameters of the resolution even when doing so would not to be topical.Consider an example. A recent policy topic read, “Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.” Suppose the affirmative increases economic engagement toward Mexico by one dollar. If I read an interpretation of “substantially” on which a one dollar increase is not substantial, you can’t just reply, “Counterinterp: I can increase by one dollar.” That so-called counterinterpretation doesn’t tell us what “substantially” could possibly mean such that a one-dollar increase affirms the resolution. If “substantially” in fact means something greater than one dollar, the pseudo-counterinterpretation implies that the affirmative can defend a nonsubstantial increase—i.e., doesn’t have to affirm the resolution. It’s fine to reject the requirement of topicality, but then just say so.In order to show that an affirmative is topical, we need an interpretation of the resolution: what do they think the resolution means, or what do they even want it to mean, such that it can be affirmed by specifying colleges, universities, tests, or decisions? Without an answer to this question, we cannot tell whether the affirmative actually affirms the resolution; being told that it does doesn’t tell us why.In order to defeat the argument while granting the topicality rule, the affirmative would need to tell us what they take the resolution to mean such that they are affirming it. The answer is presumably something like this: “‘Colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions’ means that there are some colleges and universities, some standardized tests, and some undergraduate admissions decisions such that those colleges and universities ought not consider those tests in those decisions.” It sounds absurd when you make it explicit, which is presumably why it’s seldom made explicit. As we have already seen, the resolution could not possibly have that meaning, any more than “Pterodactyls didn’t have wings” could possibly mean merely that that there are some wings that some pterodactyls didn’t have. The affirmative would need to give some reason to believe that the resolution could possibly have the meaning they need it to have—much like, when defeating any other topicality argument, the affirmative needs some evidence that the words in the resolution at least might mean what they need them to mean. I am willing to bet that there is no such evidence, and that any purported evidence for it is misrepresented or misinterpreted. Without any such evidence, we don’t need to consider the counterinterpration (whatever it is) any more than we need to consider an interpretation on which the resolution means that states ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.A card that says “Bare plurals can be existential” is not enough. Obviously I agree that bare plurals can be existential; I think at least one of the bare plurals in the resolution is existential. But even if all of the bare plurals in the resolution were existential, affirmatives that specify particular colleges, universities, tests, or decisions would not show that colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions, for the reasons we have already seen.¹Some people read a card about “ought” from this excellent paper by philosopher Fabrizio Cariani. The card points out that to say I ought to do something does not imply that every way of doing it is permissible. His example is that you ought to give food to your pets, but ought not give them poisonous food. That is surely true. Debaters somehow warp the card into saying that “‘ought’ implies specification.” That doesn’t mean anything. But if it’s supposed to mean that any ought statement can be affirmed by specifying any of its constituents, it’s clearly false, and in no way supported by the card. “Everyone ought always to tell lies” cannot be affirmed by specifying that, in some situation, someone ought to tell a lie, and it’s absurd to suppose that the author thinks otherwise. That there are impermissible ways in which we might do things we ought to do in no way supports the idea that any ought sentence can be affirmed by particular instances no matter what those sentences say. It’s a complete non sequitur. To use a negative version of Cariani’s example: that you ought not give poisonous food to your pets does not entail that you ought not give food to your pets. Isn’t that obvious? Besides, even without knowing anything about the card, it’s easy to see that it could not possibly refute the generic interpretation of the resolution, because our arguments for the generic interpretation already took the “ought” in the resolution into account.²I’ve elsewhere commented on the Leslie cards that some affirmatives warp to support an existential counterinterpretation. I’ve seen a few other cards, too, that simply cannot be parsed as making an argument for the affirmative’s interpretation. And these are just the cards readers have sent me. But affirmative misrepresentation of evidence on these issues is extremely widespread. This is unsurprising because no linguist would defend the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution, since it’s transparently incorrect. Of course, I don’t think that people are deliberately misrepresenting evidence here. The more plausible explanation is that people very much want the affirmative interpretation to be credible, so—to their credit—they search the literature. But the literature is extremely complicated. So, when they find passages that contain strings of words like “existential,” “bare plural,” “singular,” “specification,” or whatever, they interpret those strings of words into arguments that support the hypothesis they want to be true—even though, of course, no such argument is there. The words look like tea leaves, so why not divine the future from them? That is confirmation bias and motivated reasoning in action (more on that later). This process makes it easy to see how debaters could unwittingly misrepresent evidence as supporting the affirmative interpretation on this issue. Still, debaters have a responsibility to understand their own evidence, so lack of understanding doesn’t really excuse misrepresentation.³Instead of misrepresenting evidence to say that the resolution means something it clearly doesn’t mean, the affirmative should just admit that the resolution doesn’t mean what they want it to mean, and that they aren’t affirming the resolution. They should reject the first premise of the argument, and grant the second. That seems to me a more principled and intellectually honest strategy that would permit real clash on the heart of the issue: whether or not the affirmative should have to argue that, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. We’ll turn to that issue soon.

2.2 “Pragmatics First”?

Affirmatives tend to defend their (pseudo-)counterinterpretations on this issue by arguing that topicality should primarily be a matter of “pragmatic” rather than “semantic” considerations. (See my “Priority of Resolutional Semantics” for this distinction. Please note that these terms are being used in a debate-specific sense; the "semantic/pragmatic" distinction in linguistics and philosophy of language is completely different.) Semantic arguments are arguments about what the resolution means; pragmatic arguments are about what it would be better or worse to interpret the resolution as meaning. My view is that semantics function as a side constraint on resolutional interpretation, and that pragmatics can help us choose between different interpretations that are semantically eligible. If the resolution is genuinely ambiguous between two or more propositions—a claim that requires evidence of some form (e.g., explicit definitions or linguistic tests)—we can ask which of those propositions would be better to debate. But there are many propositions that the resolution just doesn’t mean; one, in the context of this resolution, is that some colleges and some universities ought not consider some tests in some admissions decisions. The alternative “pragmatics-first” view seems to hold that the pragmatic benefits of debating something can be sufficient to interpret the resolution as meaning that thing, even if the resolution doesn’t mean that thing.Now, even on the “pragmatics-first” view, it’s not at all clear that it would be better to interpret the resolution to mean that some colleges and some universities ought not consider some standardized tests in some undergraduate admissions decisions. After all, there are over five thousand colleges and universities in the United States. On the affirmative’s interpretation, there are vastly more topical affirmatives than there are atoms in the observable universe. (There at most 10⁸² atoms in the observable universe. The number of non-singleton subsets of two or more items out of a set of five thousand is 2⁵⁰⁰⁰ − 5001, or approximately 1.4 × 10¹⁵⁰⁵. For simplicity I’ve ignored the distinction between colleges and universities, since I don’t know the breakdown between them. It’s still an underestimate, though, because it doesn’t count affirmatives that specify different tests or decisions.)Against a generic interpretation of the topic, some complain that there is “only one aff.” That may be true, if you strangely insist on individuating affs only by their advocacy rather than their arguments or advantages (e.g., they think your Kant aff and my util aff are one and the same aff, which I find bizarre).⁴ But, however we count affs, it is much better for there to be only one—the generic generalization expressed by the resolution—than for there to be more than a googol. It’s impossible to adequately prepare specific answers to such a vast number of affs. That preparation burden leads to worse debates, since it leads negatives to have lower-quality answers to any particular aff; everyone knows this, so debaters are incentivized to quickly mine for surface-level arguments for obscure affs, so they can use the rest of their time finding the minimal viable quantity of barely responsive evidence against other people’s affs, or beefing up maximally generic arguments that are recycled from topic to topic. That is a worse outcome than everyone researching the very same proposition, knowing that everyone else will research that proposition, thereby creating an incentive for in-depth research, expertise, and innovation. Limits are not obstacles to creativity; they are essential to it.But even if our hypothetical affirmative’s interpretation would be better for debate, we should reject the “pragmatics-first” view that the pragmatic benefits of debating something can be sufficient to interpret the resolution as meaning something it doesn’t mean. This is because the pragmatically best proposition to debate could be something that has nothing to do with the topic or is straightforwardly inconsistent with the topic. So all the reasons to debate the resolution are reasons to reject the pragmatics-first view. Moreover, no one knows or could ever know which of all possible propositions would be best to debate, since there are infinitely many propositions that could be debated and no way of figuring out which of them would be best. So, on the “pragmatics-first” view, no one knows how the topic should be interpreted. That is an embarrassing result, because the purpose of having a resolution is to establish a commonly known basis for preparation. What’s more, it is incredibly unlikely that the proposition affirmed by the affirmative is the best possible proposition to debate, so the affirmative is incredibly unlikely to be topical even in its own terms.One reply to this argument is to say that we don’t have to consider all of the possible propositions that could be debated, but all and only those that are advanced via interpretations in any given debate. This doesn’t solve the problem. Suppose the negative interprets the current LD resolution to mean that the United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States. Since the affirmative defends no such reduction, they aren’t topical. This interpretation would be much better for clash, affirmative flexibility, limits, advocacy skills, and so on. Obviously it’s not what the resolution means, but that’s not what topicality is about—right? On the view we’re considering, pragmatic benefits can justify interpreting the resolution to mean something it doesn’t mean. As long as the negative can identify at least one proposition much better for debate than what the resolution actually means, the affirmative is not topical.Perhaps the view is the pragmatic benefits of an interpretation can justify it so long as it’s semantically good enough. I have no idea what it is for an interpretation to be semantically good enough, if it’s not just to be something the resolution might mean. And, as we have shown, the requisite interpretation for the affirmative is just not something the resolution could mean. There is no dialect of any language in which even one meaning of the resolution is that some colleges and some universities ought not consider some standardized tests in some undergraduate admissions decisions. If the resolution were genuinely ambiguous between the affirmative’s interpretation and others, or if we just couldn’t tell whether the resolution might mean what the affirmative wants it to mean, then perhaps its pragmatic benefits could justify it. But the resolution is not ambiguous along that dimension, for all the reasons we have already seen.It seems to me that, despite appearances encouraged by the format of topicality arguments, the “pragmatics-first” person isn’t really rejecting the second premise of my argument: that, even if some particular colleges and universities ought not consider particular tests in particular decisions, that doesn’t mean that that colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. They are instead rejecting the first premise of the argument: that, on this topic, the affirmative should have to argue that, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. They are, in other worse, rejecting the topicality rule, as I define it. So let’s now turn to that premise.

3 Topicality, Bobicality, and Focal Points

The first premise of my argument is more general: on this topic, the affirmative should have to argue that, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. It seems to me that the most principled response to my argument is to reject this premise, the topicality rule. And many debaters do independently claim that the affirmative should not have to be topical.Unfortunately, it is outside the scope of this article to defend the topicality rule in depth. But I take it that almost every debater and judge would accept that there is at least some reason for the affirmative to be topical and that there should therefore be at least a defeasible presumption in favor of topicality. I have tried to say a bit about that elsewhere. And, to the extent that there is such reason, we have reason to expect the affirmative to argue that, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. Here I want to take a somewhat different route.It seems to me that one of the strongest reasons to accept the topicality rule is the badness of its alternatives. These alternatives are seldom proposed or defended explicitly. Even when the affirmative explicitly rejects the topicality rule, they sometimes fail to explain precisely what the affirmative should have to do instead of affirming the resolution, in more general terms than what they did. This seems to me the most important question in debate theory. What is the affirmative burden, if not to show that, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions?Consider the most radical possibility. Suppose that the affirmative burden is to identify some proposition—anything whatsoever—and prove that proposition. The negative burden is to refute whatever proposition is defended by the affirmative. Call this division of burdens “the unconstrained parli rule” (in some parliamentary formats, the affirmative proposes its own proposition in each debate, within certain constraints). This rule would be pretty bad. Unconstrained parli would not be fair, fun, or particularly edifying in any way. For example, the affirmative could choose to defend the proposition that 2 + 2 = 4, leaving the negative with the meager ground of mathematical nihilism (“There are no numbers!”) and no recourse, given the negative burden of refuting whatever proposition the affirmative chooses to defend. I leave other objections to the reader.There is a spectrum of possibilities in between the unconstrained parli rule and the topicality rule. Some of those possibilities assign no privileged role to the resolution. They can be seen as more constrained variations of the parli rule we just considered. I won’t consider such constrained parli rules here. Let’s instead consider those rules that assign some privileged role to the resolution, other than the topicality rule as I’ve defined it.

3.1 Bobicality

Bob Overing has provided a helpful list of such alternative rules, which I will call Bobicality to distinguish them from topicality as I understand it. Let’s go through his list in order.Bobicality₁ says that the affirmative “plan and case ought to justify the conclusion the resolution asks to be drawn” (based on Allen & Burrell 1985). This seems pretty close to, though not exactly, what I think. The conclusion this resolution asks to be drawn is that, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. Even if some particular colleges and universities ought not consider particular tests in particular decisions, that doesn’t justify the conclusion that colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. Generics cannot be justified by particular instances. So the affirmatives under consideration are not Bobical₁.Bobicality₂ is that the affirmative must “provide evidence in favor of the resolution.” This requirement is much too weak. Showing that colleges and universities have some obligations would provide evidence in favor of the resolution, but it’s obviously not sufficient to affirm. So would showing that colleges and universities exist, that there are some things some agents ought to do, that there are prospective undergraduates, or anything else that slightly increases the probability of the resolution. But, also, affirmatives that specify particular colleges, universities, tests, or decisions may not even be Bobical₂; they may fail to provide evidence for the resolution. For example, suppose that two colleges and two universities ought not consider the SAT main or subject tests for prospective humanities majors because instead all colleges and universities ought to consider the ACT and other standardized tests for all students. Then the fact that some colleges and universities ought not consider some tests (namely, the SAT tests) would be strong evidence against the resolution.Bobicality₃ is that the affirmative advocacy “must be an example or instance of the resolution.” This is a common alternative to the topicality rule, as I’ve defined it. (It seems to be used pretty much interchangeably with the formulation that the plan must be a “subset” of the resolution.) But the resolution is a sentence, and I do not know what it is for something to be an example (or a subset) of a sentence. I suppose it must be something like this. If I say, “Dogs have four legs,” I might add, “For example, Fido has four legs.” The Fido statement is an example used to illustrate the generic statement. If it is felicitous to follow up a sentence with, “For example, p,” then we’ll count p as an “example” of the sentence. This heuristic works for many policy resolutions. For example, consider last year’s high school policy resolution: “The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration to the United States.” Assuming that opening borders would count as substantially reducing restrictions on legal immigration, it would be felicitous to follow up the resolution with, "For example, the United States federal government should open its borders." This suggests that the open borders plan is topical, which (given our assumption) it is: supposing that the United States federal government should open its borders (and that opening borders would count as substantially reducing restrictions on legal immigration), it would follow that the United States federal government should, indeed, substantially reduce its restriction on legal immigration to the United States—namely, by opening its borders. For this resolution, Bobicality₃ is coextensive with topicality.Although the example heuristic works for certain resolutions, it can’t be right in general. If I say, “All dogs have four legs,” I might add, “For example, Fido has four legs.” The Fido statement would be considered an example even if the original statement were explicitly universal. This makes Bobicality₃ too permissive. Suppose the resolution were, “In the United States, no colleges or universities ought to consider any standardized tests in any admissions decisions.” It would be felicitous to follow this up with, “For example, Princeton ought not consider my ACT score when I apply next year.” So it counts as an example, and is therefore Bobical₃. But it would be absurd to suppose that Princeton not considering one person’s SAT score is sufficient to affirm this explicitly categorical resolution. More generally, Bobicality₃ seems to imply, strangely, that the resolution’s division of ground would remain the same even if the bare plural “colleges and universities” were replaced with “some/all/most/many/seven colleges and universities.” It would be bizarre to think that such drastic changes to the resolution’s wording could not affect what the affirmative would have to defend, on the grounds that the affirmative only has to defend a single example (or “subset”) no matter what. Now, maybe there is some way of refining or reinterpreting Bobicality₃ to avoid its insensitivity to different quantifiers. But then it is hard to see how it could make single examples Bobical₃ on a generic resolution, since single examples affirm generics no more than they affirm universals.Bobicality₄ requires the affirmative advocacy to “fall within the bounds of the resolution.” I don’t know what exactly that means, but I think it falls prey to the same objection above. Either particular instances fall within the bounds of universal generalizations (in which case Bobicality₄ is too weak and is objectionably insensitive to massive differences in resolutional wording), or they do not fall within the bounds of generic generalizations (in which case the affirmatives under consideration are not Bobical₄ on the present LD topic).Bobicality₅ says that, “All plan provisions must bear a rational relationship to a topical scheme of action” (Unger 1979 cited by Hingstman 1985). This statement uses the word “topical” in what Bob wants to be a definition of “topical.” That is not helpful. And the idea of a “rational relationship” is insufficiently precise to be helpful.Let me summarize the comments above into a more general problem that should afflict, for any n, Bobicality_n. The challenge is to identify a principled, precise, and predictable conception of the affirmative burden in relation to the resolution on which (1) particular instances meet that burden even when the resolution is generic, but (2) they do not meet that burden when the resolution is universal (or otherwise nonexistential but not generic). I know of no conception of topicality that avoids both horns of that dilemma. We should instead just accept that, insofar as the affirmative should affirm the resolution, they have to argue that, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions—since that’s what everyone actually thinks anyway, if only in their less theory-laden moments. There is no need to grasp at ad hoc theoretical straws.⁵My impression is that people appeal to views like Bobicality because they think they do the best job of explaining the practice of policy debate. What characterizes the relationship between a paradigmatically topical plan and the resolution is that they are Bobical: they are examples, or subsets, or fall within the bounds, or whatever. These ideas may be helpful heuristics that work in many contexts. But, like many helpful heuristics, we cannot always rely on them. As we have already seen, they break down—i.e., are too vague to be helpful or have absurd consequences—when we consider a wider array of resolutions. And we don’t need to appeal to Bobicality to characterize topical plans in policy debate. As I’ve explained elsewhere, paradigmatically topical plans entail the resolution. To reject this claim, one would need to identify a plan that is widely or should be considered topical and explain how it does not entail the resolution. Bob has asserted that my conception of topicality is “extremely difficult to meet with any plan, even on policy topics.” In the spirit of Bobicality₃, he offered a single example. It was a quarter-century-old NDT topic written in the passive voice; I’ve answered it here.

3.2 Focal Points

Although most of this section has been about the problems for alternative views, they suggest an argument in favor of the topicality rule, according to which the affirmative has to show that, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. The argument appeals to the game-theoretic concept of focal points (not to be confused with the buzzword “stasis point” derived from the rhetorical concept of stasis). A focal point (or Schelling point) is a solution that people can be expected to converge upon even when they cannot effectively communicate. A solution may be a focal point because it is especially salient or otherwise special. For example, if we agree to meet in Washington Square Park, but fail to set a more specific location, we can probably expect each other to show up at the arch or the fountain; those locations stand out and everyone can see them once they’re in the park, so most people tend to meet there, can expect that most others would tend to meet there, and so on.The topicality rule is a focal point for debate. We all know that there is a resolution; that the resolution says that in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions; that one debater is designated “affirmative” and another “negative”; and we all know that we all know these things. In light of that common knowledge, the simplest, clearest, least arbitrary, and therefore most salient assignment of burdens is for the affirmative to show that, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. That is a focal point. And there is no other comparably salient focal point. As we have already seen, it is not at all clear which alternative is accepted by those who reject the topicality rule. So we cannot reasonably expect others to converge on any such alternative, even if some such alternative does in fact avoid the problems we have considered. Thus, the topicality rule is the most salient focal point.That is a strong reason to accept the topicality rule because debaters need a focal point in order to coordinate their preparation. Debaters face a problem: they have limited time in which to prepare for a tournament and do not know in advance who exactly they will debate, what their opponents will argue, what their opponents will expect them to argue, and what judges will expect them and their opponents to argue. The problem can be solved only if debaters can reasonably expect each other to converge on some basic assignment of burdens. Since the topicality rule is the most salient focal point, they can reasonably expect people to converge on that solution. And, since everyone can reasonably be expected to know this, it is reasonable for the judge to expect the debaters to converge on that solution. And, since there is no other comparably salient focal point, it would be unreasonable for the judge to expect debaters to converge on any other solution (e.g., the alternatives to the topicality rule we have considered).This argument is not just a fancy version of a “predictable limits” argument, according to which the affirmative should have to argue that colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions because, otherwise, debaters would have no predictable basis for deciding what to prepare for, which is bad for fairness and education. My argument goes further than that: even if there were some other adequate and predictable basis for preparation, that basis would be a less salient focal point than the resolution, so debaters could not be expected to converge on that solution to their coordination problem. Since everyone is in a position to know that, it would be unfair to use such an alternative basis and to expect others to use it.Here is a simple example to illustrate the point. Suppose that I send a message to every debater in the country that I will debate last year’s Jan–Feb resolution in every round and will expect all of my opponents to debate that resolution as well (i.e., will run T against any aff that doesn’t affirm it). Imagine that I can somehow verify that everyone has received this message, so I know that it is now completely predictable for me to run cases on that topic, and to argue that others should do the same. Suppose also (as is plausible) that the Jan–Feb resolution is much better to debate. It would nonetheless be manifestly unfair for me to run Jan–Feb affirmatives against opponents who want to debate the Sept–Oct topic, or to argue that affirmatives affirming the Sept–Oct topic should lose for affirming the wrong resolution. This is because, even though my solution is predictable and perhaps would be better for debate if everyone adopted it, and even if some other people do adopt it, I cannot reasonably expect everyone else to converge on it, expect everyone else to expect everyone else to converge on it, etc., since it’s not designated by the league or tournament as the topic.Let me summarize this section. The topicality rule says that, on this topic, the affirmative should have to argue that, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. This is the default, face-value affirmative burden that must be defeated if it’s not to be accepted. To defeat it, it’s not enough to show that it’s bad in certain ways; we would need to know what exactly the alternative is—what exactly any given affirmative has to do in order to win any given debate. But, first, no such alternative can reliably secure the precise and predictable limits needed for students to coordinate their preparation. And, second, even if there were some such alternative, it would not serve as a comparably salient focal point, since not everyone could reasonably expect that everyone could reasonably expect (and so on) everyone to converge on that assignment of burdens rather than the face-value one: the topicality rule.

4 Conclusion

Let’s put the argument back together. The affirmative should have to advocate that, in the United States, colleges and universities not consider standardized tests in undergrad admissions decisions. It’s not enough to advocate merely that some colleges and some universities not consider some standardized tests in some undergrad admissions decisions. For even if some colleges and some universities indeed ought not consider some such tests in some such decisions, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergrad admissions decisions.It’s a simple argument. Its simplicity is sometimes obscured by the format of topicality and by the complex vocabulary used to warrant the premises more deeply than they require, given their independent plausibility. Lots of people strongly dislike the conclusion. But if you don’t like the conclusion, which premise do you reject?Let me conclude by explaining why I care about this issue. Why have I written so many articles and so many words about genericity, plans, and topicality in LD—especially given that I like plans and wish more of them were topical on more LD resolutions? Well, first, because I find the material interesting: I enjoy thinking about debate theory and especially about language and meaning (as is reflected by some of my more recent academic work), and I better understand new things when writing each article. But, second, I think it’s really important.I am a pluralist about the value of debate. I think that debate is great for lots of different reasons, in different ways for different people. But the value that seems to me most foundational to all debate formats, all flavors of argument, and everything students learn in the activity, that is good in itself, for all students, and for the world, that is both durable beyond high school and portable beyond debate, and that debate is most uniquely positioned to promote is critical thinking: the “wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims; to discover and overcome personal preconceptions and biases; to formulate and present convincing reasons in support of conclusions; and to make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to do”—collectively, “disciplined thinking governed by clear intellectual standards.”⁶One great obstacle to critical thinking is motivated reasoning: essentially, biased reasoning toward conclusions you want to believe. I would speculate that people feel some cognitive dissonance from (i) strongly wanting to run certain plans (e.g., ones that specify particular colleges, universities, tests, or decisions), (ii) believing that the affirmative should affirm the resolution (i.e., should argue that, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions), and (iii) realizing, on some level, that the plans they want to run don’t affirm the resolution (i.e., do not show that, in the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions). It would take some pretty extreme unlearning for (iii) not to be the case. This cognitive dissonance could explain a few data points: for example, why some people seem not just to disagree with but passionately despise the argument; why people have suggested such absurd strategies to avoid it; why debaters so commonly (and unwittingly) misinterpret and misrepresent evidence to try to refute it; and why the strategy against the argument tends not to be the principled one that the affirmative doesn’t need to affirm the resolution. To reduce cognitive dissonance, we often engage in motivated reasoning, which gets reinforced via confirmation bias (selectively seeking out and interpreting evidence to confirm your own beliefs).The value of critical thinking and of mitigating cognitive bias is more important than whatever costs and benefits there are to any particular strategies on any particular debate topic. We should not encourage students to accept whatever they want to believe, but to believe whatever is best supported by the evidence. If the resolution does not mean what your affirmative needs it to mean, then just admit that you aren’t affirming the resolution, and don’t complain when you hit a nontopical aff. That seems to me the only principled response to the argument. If you don’t want to do that, because you believe that the affirmative should affirm the resolution, then maybe you should run a different aff—even if that makes it harder for you to win.

---

1. A card that says “Bare plurals are/must be existential” (there is no such card) would be even worse, because it’s self-refuting. In order to have any substantial implications, it cannot itself be existential. For if it were existential, it would mean that some bare plurals are existential, which we already knew. But if it’s not existential, then “Bare plurals are/must be existential” is false.↩
2. A similar point applies to an argument, which some affirmatives will inevitably make, that “in the United States” means somewhere in the United States, so they can specify colleges and universities even if “colleges and universities” is generic. This interpretation illicitly adds an existential quantifier to the resolution that we’ve already observed not to exist. One way to see this: “In the United States, mountains are not more than ten thousand feet tall” obviously doesn’t mean merely that somewhere in the United States are mountains that are no more than ten thousand feet tall. “In the United States” restricts the generic “mountains”; it doesn’t transform it into or add an existential quantifier. To make it even clearer, suppose the resolution read, “In the United States, most colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions.” It would obviously be absurd to suppose that this means merely that somewhere in the United States (e.g., in California), most colleges and universities ought not….↩
3. This is one reason I think debaters should disclose all rebuttal evidence and interpretations. Doing so would allow people to catch the misrepresentation of evidence more effectively, and thereby create a better deterrent to misrepresentation.↩
4. Even then, I don’t think it’s true, because extratopical affs can be topical (and, I think, legitimate); there is clearly more than one extratopical aff. I offered some defense of extratopicality in my contribution to last year’s Sept–Oct briefs. But, as Marshall Thompson has pointed out to me, there’s especially strong reason to allow extratopicality on this resolution because of the negative wording. Suppose the resolution said, “In the United States, colleges and universities ought to consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions.” On that resolution, the negative could win by showing that colleges and universities ought to do something else—i.e., a counterplan—competitive with considering standardized tests in undergraduate admissions. Colleges and universities ought not do something if the opportunity cost outweighs the value of doing it. So, when the resolution is negatively worded, showing that colleges and universities ought to do something competitive with considering standardized tests (more specific than just not considering standardized tests) should affirm. Even if you don’t like extratopicality, though, at least you can agree that extratopicality is better than nontopicality.↩
5. Another variation I have sometimes heard is that, to be topical, the affirmative only needs to “meet the words” of the resolution, not its actual meaning as a sentence. I do not know what it means to “meet the words” of a sentence. For example, what does it mean to meet the definition of “not”? It depends on the syntax of the sentence. You can’t arrive at a sensible or testable interpretation of “not” without at least considering its role in the sentence as a whole. More generally, the meanings of the resolution’s subsentential expressions (e.g., its individual words) are important because of how they contribute to the meaning of the resolution—i.e., the entire sentence. Otherwise we would just have topics be list of words and let the affirmative play Mr. Potato Head.↩
6. G. Bassham (ed.), Critical thinking: a student’s introduction (New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010), p. 1.↩

For helpful comments and discussion, I'm grateful to Jacob Nails, Nick Smith, Chris Theis, Marshall Thompson, and students in my topicality modules at VBI this summer.