Thursday Thing to Read: Policy arguments in LD
November 24, 2005 – 9:50 am by: Nick BubbToday’s Thursday Thing to Read comes from St. Louis Park’s new assistant coach of debate, and former Wisconsin LD debater, Liz Vieira. Whether due to the wording of many LD resolutions or simply a desire to run arguments beyond the scope of the traditional positions, arguments like Topicality have become a large and important issues to resolve in LD. Liz gives us an overview of how these issues work in the land of Lincoln and Douglas.
Also, I forgot to bring my connecting cable home with me–so WFD’s Glenbrooks pictures are going to be up a bit late. Check back later today, though, for a full Glenbrooks article!
Topicality in LD
By: Liz Vieira
Rather than any puns about turkey or European oppression, I’ll focus on another Thanksgiving tradition: football. Specifically, how the Vikings face crushed the Packers on Monday night. Or maybe, how the Packers have a worse record than the Vikings. Or maybe how the Vikings are just infinitely better than the Packers. In order to stop me from bragging, one might bring up a certain college game a few weeks ago that demonstrates that not all teams who call the Metrodome home display superior skills to those from Wisconsin. Fortunately for me, this is not an appropriate response. You see, the ground of the conversation had been defined as NFL teams, thus college football is irrelevant to the discussion.
First, a brief discussion on “policy arguments” in LD. As a judge, the response that I should reject an argument because “this isn’t policy debate” makes me shudder. My response as a debater was always that there are many commonalities between policy and LD that don’t seem to be questioned as readily. For instance, there’s a judge, a resolution, an aff and a neg, ballots, speaker points, time limits, etc. No one tells the kicker in football that he can’t kick because that’s a “soccer” move. If we accept structural similarities, there’s no inherent reason to reject procedural arguments on face because they’re traditionally run in policy. In fact, the existence of these structural similarities should increase the acceptance of procedural arguments in LD. Competitive equity and Fairness voters both stem from the idea that “debate is a game,” justified by rules like time limits, since LD has this same structural check on competitive equity, they should also have procedural checks since debate is as much of a game in LD as it is in policy.
My favorite justification for Topicality in LD was told to me by a traditionally conservative coach who, in response to the question of whether he believed T should be run in LD said: “Well, there’s a topic, isn’t there?” The most common reason for rejecting T in LD is because there’s no plan text, but this argument doesn’t make sense. Absent any plan text, an affirmative debater in LD still has to affirm the topic. If the reasons for affirmation fall outside the scope of the resolution, then the debater is not talking about the topic and not affirming.
The logical next question is why T needs to be procedural and why it is insufficient for the neg to simply say “the AC doesn’t affirm.” While this issue delves deeper into a subjective realm, I’d argue that an actual T violation ensures that there is sufficient ground to reject the aff on face. T in LD is structured similarly to T in policy. First, interpretation. This is the neg’s definition of the term by which the AC is non-topical. Second is the violation, or how the AC violates the neg’s interpretation. Third, standards, or why the judge should prefer the neg’s interpretation. In LD, the neg debater has an advantage because the AC probably defined the term, so the neg already knows what the counter-interpretation will be. Examples of standards include grammar, common use, access to literature, framer’s intent, predictability, etc. Finally, voters or the reasons why the judge should vote first on T. Examples of voters include education, fairness and ground. Tradition is not generally used in LD (as should be apparent by the act that I have to write a diatribe justifying it). A debater needs to include the first three components in order to win the definitional debate anyway, so the important part to justify is the voter. To oversimplify the common voters: education says fundamentally the framers chose the topic because they thought we should learn something from the topic and you should reject a non-topical AC because it impinges on the ability to learn because they’re not talking about the topic; fairness can take a variety of forms, but most of it stems from the fact that debate is a game and debaters should have an equal chance to win; ground says that non-topical AC’s expand ground and makes it impossible for the neg to win.
T is an a priori issue, or an argument the judge needs to look to before looking to standards or other arguments in the round. Procedural issues like T always come first because they concern themselves with the way the game is played and you always need to decide conflicts of rules before the outcome. You wouldn’t get a first down and then have the officials determine the definition of pass interference.
Conditionality in LD is similar to topicality and run completely differently than in policy. Condo in LD argues that the AC only affirms part of the topic. Because LD topics are truth statements, affirming means that the statement is true, not only true in certain instances. A Condo violation is structured the same way as T, except that the violation explains why the AC only affirms part of the topic.
T and Condo are important arguments for LD because they ensure that the rules of the game remain constant and fair. The typical justifications for T in policy should also justify its use in LD. Other “policy arguments” become sketchier in terms of their applications in LD. This past weekend, an LD quarterfinal was won on multiple conditional counterplans bad theory while other debaters ran plan text. While the discussion about whether or not fiat exists in LD (or what it means if it does) is enough for an entirely different discussion, debater would be wise to note the changing tide of LD. Even debaters/ coaches who disagree with the use of these arguments should be prepared to answer them as they increase in popularity.
9 Responses to “Thursday Thing to Read: Policy arguments in LD”
I considered subtitling this, “or How I learned to Love the Vikings and Destroy LD”… but figured that I’d be excercising my editorial powers a bit too much. :)
Also, “Condo” in LD is distinctly different from “condo” in policy. Most LD folk have never been around successful policy teams, and so they think that stealing the term is cool. (not really) Condo in LD refers to conditionally affirming, where condo in policy refers to conditionality. They are two different base words.
By Nick Bubb on Nov 24, 2005
Here’s what I don’t understand about topicality in LD: if the negative wins that the affirmative does not meet the best interpretation of the resolution (or a better interpretation than the affirmative’s), why is it necessary for this to be a “voting issue”? Wouldn’t the affirmative lose simply because the judge won’t evaluate any of their (untopical) arguments? In other words, if the negative wins that the affirmative isn’t affirming then how can the affirmative win a resolution-focused debate?
I guess the only scenario I can envision in which the affirmative could win even though they are not affirming the resolution is if they initiated a framework that sidesteps the question of whether the resolution is desirable. For example, they could argue that one of the negative’s rhetorical choices is bad and should be rejected and that this discursive penalty ought to precede the debate about the resolution. In such a scenario, it would make sense for the negative to make arguments about why “topicality” comes before other issues.
This was an interesting article, Liz. I don’t know enough about LD as practiced in 2005 (I’m stuck in 2000) to have a firm opinion about any of these (admittedly odd) theory developments, but it does seem to me that the notion of topicality (as argued in policy debate) is not a good fit in a resolution-focused format.
Having said that, it would seem that “conditionality” in LD is just an odd way of presenting a “plan” (or a subset of the resolution) in the 1ac. Would a good example of this on the Judicial Activism topic be an affirmative who argues that judicial activism on affirmative action is necessary to protect the rights of citizens? My assumption is that the affirmative would then defend only activism on affirmative action issues and not activism on other issues (like abortion, or euthanasia, or whatever). Is that accurate?
In that case, the “topicality” argument makes more sense (although it should probably be called “resolutionality” just so policy folks like me don’t get confused). The “conditionality bad” argument sounds like an old school “Hasty Generalization” policy argument - the affirmative is not a representative example of the resolutional hypothesis, etc.
Anyway, I just wanted to add a few thoughts to encourage discussion of Liz’s article… it is teh roxor.
Happy Thanksgiving, everybody!
~Bill
By Bill Batterman on Nov 24, 2005
Although I care not to ruin another of Bubbs threads by debating with Liz, despite of thinking that I debated rather liberally in LD, I don’t think that topicality can be thought of as a voting issue, at least not in near the same way as it is in policy debate.
The resolution provides the affirmative with an advoacy in LD, not vise versa. The standards debate often becomes a place where the affirmative can clarify this advoacy, by presenting a complete philosophical system that is “best” and arguing that the resolution is part of this.
The above seems more complicated than what it is. However, if i were debating Mr. Nick Bubb, and the resolution were “Nick should Iron Jeremy’s shirt” I would establish as the most important value, my happiness and a criterion, my comfort. Although such a value is unlikely to be justifiedif it could be, it allows us to invision a world where everything else is less important than my happiness. The resolution could be proved deductivly true, because it is a part of this world.
During the debate several things could occur:
1) I could present and win a case about a shirt being ironed by nick being important to my comfort and thus happiness. Thus, proving the resolution true.
2) I could present a case about Having my pants ironed by nick being important to my comfort and thus my happiness. Thus, not really proving anything related to the resolution. Suppose nick runs a topicality argument that my im not affirming because pants are not the same as a shirt, and wins it. He is still yet to prove that he should not iron my shirt, instead, we are still left knowing nothing about if or if not about he should iron my shirt.
Here, Im not sure how a judge should designate the ballot, niether debater addressed the resolution. Even if the affirmative had the first chance, the negative certainly knew the resolution before the round and should have prepared a generic position. Both are equally guilty.
3) I could present a case about Having my pants ironed by nick being important to my comfort and thus my happiness. Thus, not really proving anything related to the resolution. Suppose nick runs a topicality argument that my im not affirming because pants are not the same as a shirt, and wins it. He could then go onto advocate that Jeremy finds shirts that Nick irons to be less comfterable than unironed shirts. Here, despite not being able to use my 1AC against Nick’s position, i could still turn his position, whoever wins Nick’s contention is the winner of the round because that is the only argument that tells us anything about the resolution.
In this way the affirmative is punshed by losing 1ac time for not being topical, however the negative is not freed from his/her burden of arguing that hte resolution may not be true.
Unlike policy debate, the negative has the burden to shed some offensive doubt on the resolution. A policy maker in the most strict sense, may even argue that this would hold true in policy debate as well.
I hope that was clear.
By Jeremy Alexander on Nov 28, 2005
Bill- you’re right, a lot of smart affs have framework spikes to things like “proving no other reasonable actor can protect rights” which gets them out of JA. As far as why T needs to be a voter, the neg still needs to tell me why i need to throw the AC out because it doesn’t affirm. This isnt difficult, but it needs to be done.
Jer- your argument assumes a comparative topic. If you run a non topical AC on an absolute topic, burdens default neg. Your analogy doesn’t apply to the current resolution, because you don’t need a value of extrinsic to the resolution. Like on the current topic, the only implicit value is Rights Protection because the resolution prescribes an end goal. The aff has to prove the resolution true.
Example 1 is topical.
Example 2 doesn’t make sense. Under your burdens scheme, if the aff doesn’t affirm and the neg doesn’t prove the opposite true, do you give a double loss? Absent any offense you have to default neg because the resolution doesn’t prescribe the neg with a burden.
In 3, the neg could ask the judge to vote for T (justified by Education for example) because wasting 6 mins of speech time wastes our ability to learn about the topic. Any on case turns would only be weighed after T (although I’m not sure how i’d feel about “aff screws herself with time skew”).
this was rushed, but practice is ending in 2 minutes. I’ll clarify later if you have specific questions.
and i think nick should iron MY shirt.
By Liz on Nov 28, 2005
“I could present a case about Having my pants ironed by nick being important to my comfort and thus my happiness. Thus, not really proving anything related to the resolution. Suppose nick runs a topicality argument that my im not affirming because pants are not the same as a shirt, and wins it. He is still yet to prove that he should not iron my shirt, instead, we are still left knowing nothing about if or if not about he should iron my shirt.”
Indeed. I’d merely point out that pant’s don’t link to shirts and you haven’t met your own standard. Vote Neg, because its better for Jeremy to have pants on than not.
By Nick Bubb on Nov 28, 2005
Liz, i think what i said is releveant to most/if not all topics, and i think the value criterions, if not the values could be where advoacies are held. Im not going to engage in another line by line though, nick will beat me. lets just agree to disagree.
By Jeremy on Nov 28, 2005
If anyone is interested, there’s a discussion on VBD right now about Theory in LD.
The first one concerns what the resolution means for the aff, very pertinent to this one. http://www.victorybriefs.net/webs/daily/archives/006253.html
By Liz Vieira on Nov 29, 2005
Not so remarkably, I find myself agreeing with my former student (Jeremy).
I love procedural arguments in Policy (T and beyond) and when they are argued well its where I’m very likely to vote. I find them to be incredibly real world based on my practice of law because procedure is such a massive part of litigation. Policy makes a demand to essentially “file a claim about X”. As such gatekeeping issues become important related to the plan.
In LD, however, the nature of the resolution does not comport itself the same. Instead it is much more like a trial/hearing where the parties have stipulated to the issue in advance, skiping over the procedural hurdles in the process. The aff certainly maintains a burden regardless of the resolution being comparative or a “truth statement”. (These are odd and misleading terms because all resolutions are a proposed truism that, even if unstated has a correlary. “Progressive taxation is just” only needs a not thrown in there to define the negative side.)
A negative who spends his time running a T argument, with its attendant policy structure in place of a meaningfully developed case is a fool. This serves to decrease the persuasive nature of LD in favor of form. Also, and particularly for the “truth” type resolutions, it should not be surprising that an aff comes out with a position that admits no ground to the neg as she asserts her side is a universal truism. Further, by spending precious little time on a structured T argument the neg detaches their case from the resolution, making it a secondary strategy rather that using the argument to say “the aff is suspect, the neg is more certain, vote neg”.
The use of T as an argument serves to allow a neg to escape from any sort of burden to disprove the resolution. (And technically, there is no rule that says there must be a default to the negative if the aff cannot prove their side. In operation, many rounds are usually about who proves more once the dust has settled). Instead it places on the affirmative the responsibility to prove both procedure and substance when substance should be the only issue under a well tailored resolution.
Adding a seperate structural T argument when a “fails to prove/establish” argument on the same grounds works is a waste of time and works under a presumption of burdens that may be questionable on its own. The “drop because of T argument” is only inviting more theory to answer it on an abuse basis. I would certainly love to hear that hashed out duing the 13 minutes of the rebuttals, though I’d bet people would need to start a spread to get it all in.
Conditional affirmation, however, isn’t really stolen from policy and is an argument that should be used. With Condo as a concern, the use of single examples to proof the rule is generally out, favoring more discussing of the overall issues.
If we’re talking about conditionality in a policy sense, I have never seen a problem with it. As long as the arguments are not fundamentally contradictory in how things are defined saying “if you do beleive X is true, which I say it isn’t, they Y will happen” is a very legitimate position.
By Tim Scheffler on Nov 29, 2005
Being a new Minnesota friend of Liz’s, I thought I’d give my thoughts on the thread (although I’m not from Wisc).
Tim-
1. You say procedural issues are worked out in advance, and this is like a trial. The only problem is when there are procedural problems in a trial there are still consequences, like mistrials, objections, and so on. The use of these before the actual substance of evidence is proof of form before substance.
2. I don’t see how they’re fools, that just seems to be personal bias. An ad hom in place of meaningful argumentation. Besides, negs almost always run cases too.
3. Form needs to preceed the arguments because the way arguments arae put forth always comes before what the arguments say. Form comes first. Always.
4. Affs claiming there is no negative is not topicality. They are topical, they are just abusive. Large difference.
5. Using a well structured argument such as T actually saves time. Moreover, those running T can typically speak faster so time is not as needed (presumably if the judge takes T they will take speed). Also, In the case of a procedural violation the arguments should come second, because they are behind form.
6. It does not escape the burden to disprove a resolution. They are simply taking a different avenue to negation. Moreover, the argument would be that the affirmative was escaping its burden by working outside the resolution, so the affirmative bites this harm first. Also, T is never the ONLY argument, so it’s not like they don’t also negate the resolution.
7. There is no rule to presume neg, but you do so because you assume statements are false until proven true (although this resolution it makes sense to presume aff because you assume necessity until it’s disproven, you bring things on trips until you know you don’t need it though often things turn out unneeded).
8. Every resolution is well tailored, but the aff isn’t talking about it. Your argument assumes the aff is using the resolution. Moreover, again, before substance must come form.
9. Waste of time is predicated on the above, which is heavily constested at this point.
10. You argument assumes abuse theory is bad. Moreover, it’s not inviting to that because it’s not abusive to say you’re not topical, so you can talk about anything, check the lack of education, ground skew, etc. If abuse comes into play in a T debate it’s going to go neg.
11. You can resolve theory in 20 minutes of rebuttals (you forgot the up to 7 minutes of set up in the NC). It’s not hard. Well, you can resolve it as well as any case/resolution. If you want full resolution then you have a silly notion of how much debate does. Philosophers have been arguing these issues for hundreds of years. High schoolers won’t figure out the answers. Here’s a sonnet I wrote to prove my point.
While most young kids were shooting hoops or goals,
My smaller sect began to grasp the isms
That rule the schools of thought and guide men’s souls
So that our axioms will not have schisms.
Along with sound philosophy of course,
The politics of reasoned voices come,
As we all read and learn and talk ‘til hoarse
Instilled in us is just imbibe ‘til numb.
And yet it is all utterly insane,
We talk as though in four short years we’ve learned
All that philosophers have ever brained
And know it all so well that we discerned
It can be broken down to just a word
By kids in suits who are but proved absurd.
12. I like conditionality. I think it does good things sometimes and is really interesting debate. I mean, there are arguments about intersectionality, time to discuss a lot of things, and so on. It’s not as cut-and-dry as you imply here.
That’s my… 24 cents? 2 per argument I think makes “cents.”
Oh yeah, and I agreed with Liz… in case you missed that…
By Charlie Furman on Nov 30, 2005