1. Parallel Burdens - No question of values can be determined entirely true or false. This is why the resolution is debatable. Therefore neither debater should be held to a standard of absolute proof. No debater can realistically be expected to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.
- Burden of proof: Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of his/her side of the resolution as a general principle. As an LD resolution is a statement of value, there is no presumption for either side.
- Burden of clash: Each debater has an equal burden to clash with his/her opponent’s position. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his/her opponent.
- 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.
I know. You just read that twice. You don’t believe it. You certainly won’t act as if it’s true, and the next time someone posits the absolute fact that there is a presumption for the negative in LD, you will agree with them. [Sigh…]
There is, of course, a presumption for the negative in Policy. This may be where the idea that there is a presumption for the negative in LD comes from, but that has never been true. In Policy, the affirmative must argue a change the status quo; that is the affirmative’s burden. And that is also the source of the presumption. Since we cannot have a tie in a zero sum game of debate, we need to set some parameter for adjudicating when, in fact, there appears to be a tie. Because we ask that the aff change the status quo, we set the standard at that point; i.e., our starting point is that the status quo is okay, and the aff must prove that it isn’t. If they don’t prove this, then the neg, if the neg upholds the status quo, wins. I doubt that many debates devolve in this way (at least they don’t in the literature I consulted on this question), but there you are. In the case of a tie, the negative wins if there’s a presumption for the negative. That’s what a presumption means.
There has never been a negative presumption in LD, and the rules explicitly state that “there is no presumption for either side.” So, if an affirmative makes various claims in a round, the idea that all the negative has to do is prove these claims false equals a negative win is not true. At best, this would mean an unresolvable tie. Personally, I would also maintain that this would be a remarkably weak position on the part of the neg, rules, presumptions and burdens notwithstanding. The cliché that the best offense is a good defense stands up in a debate: the negative with a strong advocacy is a much better case than a negative with no advocacy other than the falseness of the other side. That kind of case is pure defense with no offense. That is weak argumentation.
There are other obvious issues in this Part 1 of the rules that conflict with much popular belief. “Neither debater should be held to a standard of absolute proof” would undermine a lot of theory arguments. A realistic argument between conflicting sides should indeed be in conflict, but the idea that one side has to prove everything and the other side only has to prove that everything can’t be proven is, well, silly. And, as with the no-advocacy neg, is another attempt to run an argument with no advocacy. It’s weak debating. Calling it “theory” merely dresses it up in its Sunday clothes in an attempt to hide its internal vacuity. That it often works is, as I say, rather remarkable. A lot of people are suckers for a lot of things if they think it’s smart and progressive. Given that, if it were true that one side must argue absolutes and the other need not the side that need not ought to win exactly all the time, it’s not surprising that the rules preclude this approach.
“Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of his/her side of the resolution as a general principle.” That’s clear enough. You’ve got to have an advocacy that is cut from the LD mold of upholding a value. “Neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his/her opponent” would toss a lot of negs right out the window for obvious reasons, not to mention the clear statement that both sides must “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.” Off-case? Pre-standards? Bias makes it unarguable? Suck it up. If the resolution is not arguable, your best strategy is to do Extemp for a couple of months until the next resolution rolls around. Or PF. Or, heaven forbid, Dec. But if you’re going to walk into an LD round to debate either side, you must have an argument for your side, it must be in aid of a value, and it must be relevant to and accepting of the resolution.
I don’t make this stuff up. It’s the people who disagree with me who need to put their cards on the table and demonstrate first, there should be no rules, or failing this, that the source of the rules should be someone other than NFL. Until that point, well….
You’ll probably to continue to enjoy the next 4 sections if you’ve made it this far. AY, in an earlier comment, asked for a link to these rules. I’ll put up a pdf at some point, but till then, it’s all in the District Manual.
No comments:
Post a Comment