On the Nature of Lincoln-Douglas, Part 7

3. Argumentation – Because Lincoln Douglas debate is an educational debate activity, debaters are obligated to construct logical chains of reasoning which lead to the conclusion of the affirmative or negative position. The nature of proof may take a variety of forms (e.g., a student’s original analysis, application of philosophy, examples, analogies, statistics, expert opinion, etc.). Arguments should be presented in a cohesive manner that shows a clear relationship to the value structure. Any research should be conducted and presented ethically from academically sound and appropriately cited sources.

I can’t imagine anything less controversial than the above paragraph. “Don’t make up the research,” would seem to sum it up. I have nothing to add, except that I have only occasionally felt the need to examine a piece of evidence, and have always been rather amused that LDers think that handing you their case with the quote typed up in it somehow suffices, especially when my problem is not that I didn’t hear or understand the quote so much as I didn’t quite believe it. If you’re going to have evidence, would it kill you to photocopy it directly from the source? If you want to be a Policy debater, act like one.

4. Cross-Examination - Cross-examination should be used by the debater to clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments in the round.

I guess one can extrapolate from this that CX should not be used as another three minutes of prep time. Certainly it is no great leap to accept that the timings for the speeches in LD have been set by the NFL (it’s on their ballots). The acceptance of flex prep seems about as reasonable as the acceptance of a debater deciding in a round that he’ll take his thirteen minutes of debate as 4, 4 and 5 rather than 6, 4 and 3. Whatever. Cases that are so unintelligible that they have to be read during prep is the culprit here, mixed in with a little fashion-following. Anyhow, aside from this, the explanation of CX here is definitely the starting point to training any debater what to do while standing there for three minutes of free air time. Good CX skills are hard to acquire, in that they require a mix of careful analysis of what’s been heard so far, respectful yet firm questioning, plus laying strategic groundwork for your own case. Maybe that’s why people like flex prep instead: They get to bypass one of the hardest jobs in a round.

5. Effective delivery: Lincoln Douglas debate is an oral communication activity that requires clarity of thought and expression. Arguments should be worded and delivered in a manner accessible to an educated non-specialist audience. This encompasses:
- Written communication: Cases and arguments should be constructed in a manner that is organized, accessible, and informative to the listener. The debater should employ clear logic and analysis supported by topical research.
-Verbal communication: The debater has the obligation to be clear, audible and comprehensible, and to speak persuasively to the listeners. Additionally, debaters should strive for fluency, expressiveness, effective word choice, and eloquence.
- Non-verbal communication: The debater should demonstrate an effective use of gestures, eye-contact, and posture. Throughout the debate, the debaters should demonstrate civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

“An educated non-specialist audience”? Come on, now. Those are strikin’ words, pardner. The number of “top” debaters today who can win a ballot from, say, the average Supreme Court justice is pretty small. Our theoretically hottest debaters are capable only of picking up ballots from a select (and often pre-selected) group of professional LD judges. I’ve talked about this many times in the past.

That effective speaking is only marginally valued these days in LD is hardly a shocker. There is even a subset of people who don’t even bother to stand up to present their cases. Again, debaters who imitate what they think is Policy are sort of missing the point of their idolatry. The value of Policy debate, aside from the classic rhetorical benefits, is the manipulation of research. Go to court some day; you might see lawyers with as many tubs as your average Policy team. LD, with none of the need to get tons of evidence across in a short period of time, goes fast presumably simply to fit more stuff into less time. I wonder why announcers on TV don’t do this. After all, if K Couric talked twice as fast, she’d cover twice as much news. John Stewart, at twice the speed, would be twice as funny. If Obama’s inauguration speech were twice as fast, he could have included all kinds of other stuff as well. Beats me. Anyhow, the battle to get debaters to speak well in a classic sense is a losing one, and I have no intention of fighting it at any length here now. Given that there is no realistic use for extreme speaking speed outside of debate, the logic of using it inside debate must stand or fall on its own merits. The only thing I can say is that, if your judge says go slowly, it behooves you to go slowly. From my own experience, in my heyday I could flow just about anything, but since nowadays I judge only a few times a year, I’m rusty. I admit as much to anyone I judge. If they choose to ignore this warning, they will not deliver effectively. They may, if they wish, blame me for not receiving effectively, and they may be perfectly justified in doing so, but that won’t help them earn any speaker points on my particular ballot. Come to think of it, the number one complaint I hear from judges, regardless of paradigm or experience, is that when debaters ask for preferences before a round, the debaters then proceed to ignore those preferences. How about a new slogan: “Don’t Care? Don’t Ask!”

Anyhow, we’ll sum up next time out.