Am I the only person in the world aware that the NFL has issued new LD guidelines? I thought our parochial little universe would be burning up with discussion of this stuff, but I haven’t seen thing one or thing two. Maybe I’m just looking in the wrong place. The Legion of Doom may be dead and buried, but I at least expected WTF to roll out the usual crackpots and bloviators and non-normative lunatics. If they did, I can’t find them. Maybe Bietz has designed controversy out of the site. Even I wouldn’t want him to have gone that far.
I had been invited to sit on the committee proposing the new rules, but of course, not going to NatNats kiboshed that. Too bad, because I would have liked to have gone. But the committee was strong and diverse, and did a good job. Ripon sent early materials out during the summer, and now the Executive Committee has passed a bunch of their recommendations and made them into rules. (Those rules only apply to NFL, of course, but that’s like saying that the rules of golf only apply to Tiger Woods. I play by the same rules, mostly, even when I’m not in contention for a Master’s Green Jacket.) According to Scott Wunn, NFL’s majordomo, the Halvorson/Doshy handbook is geared to these new recommendations, so that work is as timely as… some… really timely thing [you know the drill: we don’t waste time thinking up cute metaphors here—our experience with pomo informs us that even thinking about metaphors is the pathway to perdition].
Anyhow, let’s take a look at the new material.
It begins with a comparison of values to operating principles. That’s a good start. One of the problems with the word value is that it seems to confuse people. Maybe the whole source of having a value/criterion comes from the vagueness of the idea of value as opposed to policy, and, of course, LD began as a counterpoint to policy, lo those many years ago. Now that LD is its own banana, clarity of its purpose on its own terms is required.
“Neither the affirmative nor negative side is permitted to offer a plan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a general principle.”
Right at the top the rules prohibit plans and counterplans. Previously the rules said that plans weren’t required; now you’re required not to have them. I don’t think this changes anything in particular, but it does clarify the concept that we are arguing for or against something based on underlying principles (or underlying values). People use the word principle in this context all the time; they don’t use value in this context all the time. Hence, the move to clarity is manifest.
“The hallmarks of Lincoln Douglas debate include: 1) Parallel Burdens 2) Value Structure 3) Argumentation 4) Cross Examination 5) Effective Delivery”
Wow. Don’t tell me that 1, 3 and 5, right off the top and with no explanation whatsoever, won’t rile the $ircuit folk.
Let’s start at the beginning.
I’ve been arguing in favor of parallel burdens since day one, if for no other reason than that a negative with a strong advocacy is more competitive than a negative that just says no. Here, the rules specifically state that “there is no presumption for either side,” which has always been true, but somehow lately judges have been acting as if there is a presumption for the neg, as in policy. Tain’t never been so, tis less so now. “No debater can realistically be expected to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution.” All those people who argue that “I only have to prove one little instance is not true and therefore the whole thing is not true,” which has never made logical sense, now are out of business. “The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.” This could not be clearer. There is then the burden to clash: “neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his/her opponent.” In other words, argue the ^%$#* resolution, you yabbo! Where have you heard that before, oh VCA? And if ‘nuff hasn’t been said: “Resolutional burden: The debaters are equally obligated to focus the debate on the central questions of the resolution, not whether the resolution itself is worthy of debate. Because the affirmative must uphold the resolution, the negative must also argue the resolution as presented.” Someone, I think it was Menick, once (no, a hundred times) said that a debate round is not the place to argue what the resolution should be; there’s a whole process for that outside of the rounds. Now it’s a rule. Yeah. For that matter, I’ve also always said that a debate round in not the place to argue what a debate round should be! It is not the proper venue, if for no other reason that performative action will have no effect outside of the round (although there are other reasons).
I’ll go on to one more thing for now, #2, Values.
“2. Value Structure -The value structure (or framework) is established by the debater to serve two functions: a) to provide an interpretation of the central focus of the resolution, and b) to provide a method for the judge to evaluate the central questions of the resolution. The value structure often consists of a statement of the resolution (if affirming), definitions (dictionary or contextual), the value premise (or core value), and the value criterion (or standard). This structure is commonly but not always employed.
Definitions: The affirmative should offer definitions, be they dictionary or contextual, that provides a reasonable ground for debate. The negative has the option to challenge these definitions and to offer counterdefinitions.
Value Premise/Core Value: A value is an ideal held by individuals, societies, governments, etc. that serves as the highest goal to be protected, respected, maximized, advanced, or achieved. In general, the debater will establish a value which focuses the central questions of the resolution and will serve as a foundation for argumentation.
Value Criterion/Standard: In general, each debater will present a value criterion (a standard) which the debater will use to:
- explain how the value should be protected, respected, maximized, advanced, or achieved.
- measure whether a given side or argument protects, respects, maximizes, advances, or achieves the value.
- evaluate the relevance and importance of an argument in the context of the round.
The relationship between the value premise and the criterion should be clearly articulated. During the debate, the debaters may argue the validity or priority of the two value structures. They may accept their opponent’s value structure, prove the superiority of their own value structure, or synthesize the two.”
This is as clear as [yadda*3]. It explains how values and criteria should be used, without completely mandating them (“commonly but not always employed” allows some wiggle room, which is a good thing). It asks for neutral definitions. It states that sides can have the same or different V/Cs, which is occasionally confusing to the troops out there. I have regularly heard that “there’s a rule that both sides must uphold the same value,” or different values, or somesuch nonsense. It is now clear that this is not true: “They may accept their opponent’s value structure, prove the superiority of their own value structure, or synthesize the two.” Same, different, whatever, just debate them.
More on this in the future. So far, I’m in the happy camp.
No comments:
Post a Comment