In which we look at the list of LD topics

I do like seeing that the Nats now actively solicit advice on their LD resolutions. They used to arrive in one’s debate stocking like so many pieces of coal on Christmas morning, igniting immediate responses of this being the worst rez ever and I’m quitting LD to do Declamation, eventually settling down to the usual you-take-what-you-get-and-there-you-are. For a while committee members would “leak” the rezzes under consideration, which was a step in the right direction, but now they just publish them in various venues and ask coaches to have at them.

I will admit that I do not feel it terribly appropriate that I offer too much commentary, not having been in an LD round for maybe 5 years now. But it doesn’t take much insider knowledge to detect a less than LDish smell to most of them. A couple mention such things as morality and rights and justice, but seemingly only as afterthoughts. Take away those, and you have a splendid list of PF topics, or as many have pointed out, Policy topics (and, apparently in some cases, actual old Policy topics). I mean that seriously: the monthly PF topics (and I have been in rounds or coached people on these in recent memory) have tended to be fair dinkum dreadful. Virtually all of these would be better. Anyhow, it’s interesting how few commentators I’ve seen have said word one about PF. It’s as if it doesn’t exist. It’s not that it’s not foremost in people’s minds; it’s just not there. The idea seems to hold that debate is either LD or Policy, despite the fact that, from what I’ve seen, there are more PFers out there than those two combined.

Anyhow, this is not to suggest that the LD topics aren’t good, as LD apparently exists nowadays, as one-person policy argumentation. I mean, they mostly all are about instituting/changing a policy, and I guess that’s what people want. There are no handholds for people to weigh on the basis of any particular inherent values, so one can simply say that, for instance, limited immunity for police officers will lead to this or that real-life consequence, rather than that it’s a good thing or a bad thing on some transcendent level. That this means that we now have three debate styles (LD, Policy and PF) that argue virtually the same stuff, with little apparent distinction to the casual (and maybe not-so-casual) observer, doesn't seem to matter to too many people. I know nothing about Worlds Debate, which I am told is the coming thing. Are they arguing the same topics? I hope not, otherwise it’s four debate styles with little or no distinction.

As I say, I do not intend to offer any particular commentary back to the committee. What I have to say is for your eyes only. We’re just sitting here, chewing the fat. Bloviating, in other words. Which is what we do best.

_

/