Purity in LD

FYI: I am sending the following to Fred R and the NFL Committee to Ban Concupiscence in LD

-----

I wish I were going to be there to participate in full in the committee. However, I do offer my thoughts, some of which are felt strongly, and I’ve so noted them.


1. Full review of all manual items related to the event

I simply offer a little changed wording, as marked. Most should be kept as is.

In the manual:
Question: The question will be one requiring a value judgment.

And from the ballot section of the manual (which I assume means that all of this will be printed on the ballots):
1. Unlike policy debate, the resolution to be debated will be a proposition of value rather than a proposition of policy. Thus the students are encouraged to develop argumentation on the resolution in its entirety based upon conflicting underlying principles and values to support their positions. To that end, they are not responsible for practical applications; no plan will be offered by the affirmative.
Unnecessary, and confusing.
2. Delete: There are no prescribed burdens in L-D as there are in policy debate; no "burden of proof" and no "presumption." There is no status quo. Therefore, decision rules are fair issues to be argued in the round.
Substitute: There is no presumption in L-D; both debaters have equal burdens to uphold their side of the resolution. For example, in a given resolution, "X is Y," the affirmative must contend that that X is Y, and the negative must contend that X is not Y. The judge will decide the round on the basis of which side best upheld its position.
If someone can dome up with a better construct than my X is Y, please do.

Add (separate number): Both sides of the debate must accept the content of the resolution. Arguments that reject part or all of the resolution based on wording, presumed framers' intentions, etc., will be disregarded by the judge.
If we don’t come up with something like this, there’s not much point in having a wording committee…

3. Evidence is not a primary consideration in L-D Debate. Logical reasoning is of primary consideration as well as the maturity of thought. Examples and analogies are to be used for purposes of illustration only. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of authoritative opinion.
4. This event is not unrelated oratory; as such there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. The clash must relate to the values argumentation. Cross Examination should clarify and advance argumentation.
5. Communication in L-D Debate should approximate superior speaking to community groups. (Definitely keep this in, not that anyone ever pays attention to it.)
6. In making your decision, be as objective as you possibly can. Remember these are value propositions upon which you may have strong feelings of which the debaters are unaware. You should judge the round as it is debated, not as you personally feel. You might ask yourself the following questions: a. Which debater persuaded you that his/her position was more valid? b. Which debater communicated more effectively? c. Which debater logically supported his/her position more effectively?


2. The Topic Selection Process

Listening to Fred explain the issues of topic selection in Kentucky, I felt remiss about my own lack of participation over the years. On the other hand, I was shocked to learn (and I assume it’s true) that only a small percentage of districts vote from the list of 10.

I would suggest the following:
1. That Ripon send out an official call for topics to the districts a month or two before nationals. We’re sort of catch as catch can now, I think.
2. That the topic committee do whatever it’s been doing at Nationals, the way it’s been doing it. I think the list of 10 shows a wide range, and pretty good wording.
3. That the 10 topics be sent to the District chairs, or perhaps a secondary broader committee, immediately after the list is decided at Nationals. My real problem with topics usually hinges on a word or phrase, the inclusion or exclusion of which would make a substantive difference in the debating of that resolution. (For instance, in the separation of church and state resolution, a large number of debaters argued “strictness,” positing loose separation versus strict separation. A change in wording would have eased this misdirection of energy, in some degree getting debaters back on topic.) To quote Twain, the difference between the right word and the wrong word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug. Pushing the resolutions out to the chairs for a little breather and response early in the summer could help swat away those lightning bugs. Chairs would respond back to the committee by a set date (8/15?) , and the committee could discuss via email and make its final determination by 9/1(?), allowing plenty of time in this electronic age for the committee to discuss, and the membership to vote. This keeps the responsibility within the committee, but gives the committee the benefit of the interested membership, and the time to mull things over.


3. Release of the Topic

The process now is fine, both in the number of topics and the amount of time to consider them. Don't change. The only issue I’ve seen (which I don’t agree with) strikes me as a moving target, that is, institute trainers or whoever getting a competitive leg up; they’ll get a leg up no matter what you do, once they figure it out. The process now does a good job of separating LD from Policy and PFD, separating the “purity” of each.

4. Purity in LD
5. Definition of LD Debate and Theory

The less officially said on points 4 and 5 the better. That is, the committee need not define these, and probably should not. Making select changes (such as I noted under number one) should be enough. The more that gets said, the less it will be regarded. There is a risk that NFL could be balkanized if it goes too far.

6. Electronic Retrieval Devices

I have no objection to PCs in a round (which seem to be more trouble than they’re worth in LD), but perhaps some wording to the effect that “electronic communications of any nature are prohibited” is necessary.

7. Internet Sourcing and a Review of Full Cite Source Rules

The present evidence rules require full citation, clean copies a la policy, the whole shebang. No one follows these rules, but they are good and should not be changed. The only thing that might be added is that “Providing a quotation in a printed copy of a case will not suffice as meeting the evidentiary requirements.”

8. Establishing consequences for violations or not

No comment.

9. Judge Paradigm Form

I do believe that a contestant should have some idea about the judge. Good speaking may require judge adaptation, but you need to know what you’re adapting to. Judge paradigms are probably impractical for Districts, at least when there’s a number of parents adjudicating rounds. Paradigms should be required for Nationals, though; I would suggest written, not numerical, posted on the NFL website by a reasonable date.

10. Ballot Review

30 points (even though they don't matter at NFL tournaments, they ought to be traditional), plus get rid of all those little boxes and put a big general open space on there for RFDs, comments, etc., like the normal ballots we see all the time.

11. Time Limits and Structure in LD

Don’t change. You would get something different, but probably no better or worse.