Rules, Part Two, They're Back and They're Mad

Let’s go on from where we left it.

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.

Pretty obvious. I do note that they’re not making a big deal about ethical research, aside from saying that it’s required, and that’s fine by me; unlike some, like Smilin’ J, I’ve never felt there was a lot of finagling going on in this area. The only thing that really strikes me about this paragraph is that they’re mandating a “clear relationship to the value structure,” which, combined with other things already mentioned, pretty much mandates having a value structure. I’m a little iffy about that, because the standards framework doesn’t strike me as the only way to go, but I have no difficulty living with V/C if the rule is there. Occasionally a resolution may not require V/C for a good, solid argument, but I guess going forward, it will by default. So be it.

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

No doubt the whole flex-prep issue was raised and ignored by the NatNat Natterers. So it should be. One could, perhaps, point out that this is not prohibiting flex prep, but as far as I’m concerned, there are a variety of aspects to CX that make it valuable, both to the debaters and judges, moreso than a couple of debaters sitting around trying to figure out one another’s cases and throwing out the odd question when they’re totally baffled, because those cases are so complex they defy ready understanding. If you are going to argue with someone, at some point you should face them (so to speak) and confront their material. Good old-fashioned cross ex does this. Ever watch a presidential debate? Usually the vacuousness of the enterprise is entirely the result of the lack of clash and true confrontation. We don’t need this in LD too.

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.

Now there’s a bunch of mouthfuls.

“Worded and delivered in a manner accessible to an educated non-specialist audience.” In other words, you’ve got to speak it out loud so that the average yabbo will be able to understand what you’re saying. Perhaps this more than anything so far aims at the heart of what I’ll call present-day “bad” debate (usually referred to as “progressive” debate by those who have learned linguistics from the RNC). The tendency to go really fast, to run overly complicated positions, and to read impenetrable evidence, are the core things people like the Legionnaires have been railing against, for whatever reasons. I’m with them on this. And I’ll give one simple reason: at the point where I can’t bring along an educated non-specialist (read “parent”) to cover my judging, I can’t afford to go so much anymore. If you want to do policy, then go ahead and do policy; they’ve already let the speed/complicated/obscurant horse out of the barn. The NFL is trying to close that same barn door on LD before it’s too late. Will this result in change? Maybe.

The bullet points simply elaborate on the core idea, and they’re all fine. I would tell my debaters to do all of this in order to win rounds, and come to think of it, I have been telling my debaters to do all of this since the first day I ever told them anything.

More tomorrow, if I get a chance. I’ve been up to here in Bump, MHLs, chezzes and generally living my life somehow, which is why I didn’t write anything yesterday. O’C wants me to contribute to the debate on WTF, but honestly I haven’t even peeked at it yet. Not to mention that O’Bietz’s new design is driving me crazy. He’s got systemsitis; when I managed editorial systems at my day job I saw this all the time, to wit, the inability to leave well enough alone. And for some reason he seems to think that a list of who responded to what in the news events is somehow of paramount importance. Oy. I need to give him one of my many user lectures.