More on burdens, or, my petition for bad resolutions

It’s not as if burdens are some dramatically original modern thing that, sadly, we old fogies simply don’t understand. Never forget that when Miranda says, “O brave new world, That has such people in't!” her father’s rather jaded reply is, “'Tis new to thee.”

It has been ever thus in LD that one side or the other will make some sort of claim along the lines of, if I can prove (or disprove) just one example, I win. Often this is true. There are times when a side is making a categorical claim that can be disproven by any single example, which is a simple extension of the concept of something being categorical: If it doesn’t always apply, then it isn’t categorical, pack up your tent and go home now. We can wrap this in all kinds of jargon, but that is not really necessary (although it is somewhat fashionable: despite the facts remaining the same, the language changes from debate generation to debate generation). What I take issue with is not something as elemental as the single disproof of a categorical statement so much as the attempt to impose burdens that are not intrinsic to a resolution. Good debate, as a general rule, is the exchange of ideas in a meaningful way, which usually means fighting over the middle ground. It’s hard to believe that LD should not subscribe to that general rule of what good debate is, but often burdens are posited anywhere but the middle ground. More to the point, people sometimes write cases that clearly state “my opponent’s burden is” something that, simply put, is not intrinsic to the material at hand, and is not a real burden for the other side. Often, it is what a debater hopes the opponent will accept as a burden, because it is impossible to fulfill it, which would put the claimant in the catbird seat. Those are what I call “good luck” burdens, as in, good luck in getting this one to fly.

What seems to happen is that burdens, rather than being actual organic burdens, become straw man arguments that are anything but organic. At the point where you can distract your opponent from the resolution, you ought to be able to pick up, provided that you don’t distract yourself as well. But that, of course, is the natural result of straw men, that everybody goes out and chases them, including the judge. The resolution is left in the dust.

Maybe what we need are really bad topics. You see, the problem with felon voting rights or international courts is that they are interesting, important subjects with a lot of potential arguments on either side. People like me would like to hear debaters argue the merits of their position rather than the position of their position, which is where false burdens tend to lead. I guess it always comes back to this, one way or the other: Debate the resolution. Everything else is just a distraction.