Monday, January 26, 2009

On the Nature of Lincoln-Douglas, Part 8 (conclusion)

We have made the case that, first, that rules are needed for LD rounds, and second, that the rules provided by the NFL are the rules we should abide by. Then we have presented those rules and analyzed what they are saying.

Are these the best possible rules for the activity? Not necessarily, although my opinion is that they are pretty good, and if I were asked to come up with something, it wouldn’t be much different from this. In our analysis, we have decidedly not been evaluating the rules, however, but simply enumerating them and discussing their meaning. The thing is, once you accept the need for rules, and the provenance of the NFL, you are sort of stuck with accepting the NFL’s rules. Who wants to play a game with someone who keeps complaining that the rules are unfair? As we’ve said often in the past, an LD round is not the place where one should debate the rules of LD. Once you decide to debate LD, well, following the rules already in place is what you have to do. If you think the rules should be changed, then come up with a way to do so that does not include your implicit acceptance of those rules in a debate round operating under those rules. Taking a “conscientious objector” approach and flouting the rules in a round is not quite the way to do it; as any conscientious objection scholar will tell you, when you break the law you should expect to pay the consequences, which in this case would be to lose the round. The point of conscientious objection is to publicize injustice, not evade consequences.

I have heard an argument that because the NFL is irredeemably flawed, their rules cannot stand. I don’t buy this logic, because this would mean that in a region where murder is illegal but the local police are corrupt, the law against murder is no longer valid. For that matter, I don’t buy the underlying premise that the NFL is irredeemably flawed. Their website may be just slightly more complex than your average Hieronymus Bosch triptych, and the VCA is well aware that I am no longer the world’s worst district chair (much to the acclaim of Rippin’, it would seem), but I have never believed, and I certainly doubt if I have ever claimed, that they are in any way, shape or form not looking out for what they think are the best interests of students, nor that they are in any way, shape or form not the people I want as the underlying organization behind what we do.

So what if you happen to disagree with their rules? Are your stuck with them? Of course not. You have avenues of change you may pursue within the organization. You pay your dues: communicate with Rippin’ and the LD folks and see how that works out. Or, if you run a tournament, post different rules for that tournament. As long as the rules are clear, people will follow them. Nothing stops anyone from doing that. CFL certainly does it. TOC does it (by not running the topic of the moment), and the northeast will be doing the same with The Northeast Championships. Next year the Modest Novice will have its unique, non-NFL topic. I have heard of tournaments that experiment with different speech timings and the like. I see nothing in the NFL rules that say, if you don’t follow these rules you will be expelled from forensics. But if you’re not going to follow these rules, some other clear rules are required; a game with no rules is no game at all. As I say, the issue of what the best rules might be is vastly different from the issue of the inherent need for rules. And until such point as clear and specific rules are in place substituting for the NFL’s rules at a tournament, the NFL’s rules must stand. You don’t have to love ‘em, you just have to obey them. If you don’t like it, and you’re not willing to offer change in a productive, practical fashion, either within the system or through your own ostensive and academically sound alternate system, then do all of us a favor and take up competitive cucumber growing. LD rounds (and cucumbering) will both profit from your secession from the activity.

No comments: