A2: Why Debate? - Claire McKinney

The Slightly Younger Woman Respondeth

Sean’s post is a thoughtful defense of why we ought to spend some time not just asking how we can win debates, but also to consider what makes the activity as a whole worth fighting for. Coaches know the necessity of justifying this activity to administrators and budget allocators on a near yearly basis, so spending time reflecting whether are goals are good ones or if we are achieving them is a worthwhile endeavor, at least in my mind. I, however, would like to respectfully disagree with much of Sean’s post because in the end, I do not think we are doing that bad of a job teaching argumentation (of course, I’m a relative novice at the task because I am not a Communications PhD, but my non-debate professional life requires I know how to argue persuasively, so at least I have some working knowledge in this area).

First, I think the claim that debate isn’t centrally any of the things you mention is an example of poor argumentation. Just because we can get these benefits elsewhere (and many of us do), that doesn’t mean we do not engage in debate for the exact same reasons. I can also learn how to make arguments from a writing class, a communications major, or blog posting and commenting. For me, I engage in debate partially because I am seduced by the combination of the contestation of ideas in a competitive framework. I was never good at sports, so winning or coaching others to win gives me the adrenaline rush that I couldn’t get otherwise. However, this does not respond to why we should be engaged in debate, but asserting the truth claim that because other forums exist, debate is not about those things is a misunderstanding of how human activities often have the same ends or how the same desires motivate engaging in multiple activities.

Of course, this also means these other focuses are not exclusive with the pedagogical goal of teaching argumentation, but I disagree that the focus on argumentation has disappeared. I think that we need to recognize the fundamental tension between the dual poles of debate: education and fairness. In a world of absolute fairness, Sean is right that the ideal judge would be truly a blank slate and all judges would consistently apply the same criteria for wins and losses without concern for argumentative content. In a world of absolute education, then debate would probably not result in one winner and one loser and more time would be given towards the actual teaching of argumentation, clash, and differentiation between weak and strong arguments and engage in some strong degree of truth seeking. However, we have to weigh both values, which ultimately means some education and some fairness are always sacrificed in debate.

I cannot speak to the Ulrich-Rowland exchange because I’ve never read the articles, but I can respond to how Sean is mobilizing that debate in his argument. I think in the end, Sean has set up the extreme case that undermines the overall argument. While I am only familiar with high school debate nowadays, I do not think people are unilaterally willing to vote on anything as long as it is asserted. At the TFA state tournament, I voted neg on presumption because there was no uniqueness extended to the aff advantage in the 2AR and the extension of the link turn on politics was too blippy to justify the 2AR extension of it. I voted neg on a kritik because never was there an explanation of how the permutation resolved the offense on the kritik despite the 2NR never addressing the permutation explicitly. And I often refuse to vote on theory that doesn’t have a link or impact articulated in the debate. I don’t think I’m alone in these types of behaviors. I think judges have different standards for what constitutes a complete argument, and when that standard isn’t met, then the claim is not factored into the decision.

It seems that Sean is saying that because debaters are not uniformly good at making arguments, debate fails to teach argumentation. I just do not agree. I think that’s like saying because the majority of people in a math class will not get A’s, we have failed to teach math. The majority of debaters probably will not become the paradigm of good argumentation and thus will rely on poor argumentation in order to win debates, but I don’t think that signals a failure to teach argumentation. I think it signals that everyone makes due with the skills they currently have in order to win, but as they get better, they will rely less on those tactics in the bulk of the debate because better argumentation is much more difficult to win against.

Sean’s argument that we reward bad debating because we vote on dropped arguments with no truth value also seems to rest on a fallacy. While it may be true that often decisions are based on the part of the debate with the least coverage, and thus may ‘reward bad argumentation’, the only way you get a team to undercover and issue is if you force them to spend time on other issues where good argumentation has occurred. The win does not just correlate to the one argument that the team wins, but to the totality of the debate and how strategically arguments have developed throughout the hour and a half.

I’m not trying to paint an overly rosy picture of debate. I do think that there are practices in debate that fail to maximize the transportable skills that we develop in debate. But I do think that we are better at developing argumentative skills than this and other ‘crisis in debate’ posts give us credit for. Ultimately, I think this is part of the mission of most camps. At the UTNIF, we definitely are focused on good argumentation, skills development, and encouraging good debate as opposed to merely winning debate. I think there is a reason debate camps do not put out Spark or comprehensive ASPEC files or whatever hobgoblin of bad debate is your favorite.

Ultimately, I do fear that if good argumentation becomes our only standard for evaluating debate, a couple things will happen:
1) This will force judges either to give double losses in a minority, but still good portion of debates when no one has made either a “true” or “good” argument, or it will devolve into our current system because the requirement to declare one winner and one loser.
2) Teams will lose because of the expertise of judges, not their opponents. I know that right now, the South Korea Free Trade Agreement won’t pass because Baucus refuses to let it out of committee. Even if the affirmative never makes this argument against a KORUS good DA, the neg would still lose, because “Their argument is stupid” and I know “It’s just not true.” With mutual preferred judging (MPJ), I know then my position of truth over all else in judging would be quickly eliminated from mattering because debaters would stop putting me in the back of rooms. Without MPJ, I would still discourage good argumentation, because no matter what a team did in providing persuasive reasons why their position is true, I could discount it because I was impossible to persuade. I can think of nothing worse for deterring argumentation and the required open mindedness to the world.

Finally, I think we have the middle ground Sean asks for. Many judges do not evaluate debate in an offense/defense paradigm. Perhaps you could describe us as having a reasonability standard to judging. A counterplan with marginal solvency doesn’t actually solve. A DA with miniscule risk actually has no risk. An aff advantage than could not plausibly be solved has no risk. A theory block without warrants does not constitute a reason to reject the team. Perhaps we should convince more people to judge in this way, but if we don’t, that’s more a failure on our own argumentation, rather than a failure of the activity.