Commentary
Ranking Educational Objectives by Stephen Babb
Even some of the best theory debates are plagued by shallow and unimaginative discussions of education. Buzzwords like “depth” and “scope” are tossed about in mindless recitation while the judge wonders why they should even be flowing the same debate they’ve watched dozens of time before. Our debates about debate can be painfully superficial, and no more so than when invoking the weighty value of “education.”
Should Judges Time Rounds?
Should judges time rounds or may they rely on debaters’ cross-timing? At one time the community norm was unequivocal – judges had to time (and if necessary give debaters time signals). Debaters as a general rule didn’t time their own speeches. Today on many circuits timing practices are much more equivocal. Debaters are generally expected to time themselves and each other, though they often do so haphazardly. Does the judge have a responsibility to make sure time is kept correctly?
Respect: Part II By Chris Theis
Last week I argued that debaters should have more respect for the preferences of judges. This week I will cover the other side of the equation: the responsibility of judges to be more honest and open about their preferences.
What Position Will Win the TOC?
First, I just want to give a shout-out to the Mountain Brook tournament in Birmingham. This is the second year I’ve been, and once again the hospitality and timeliness have been exceptional. Jeff Roberts really goes out of his way to bring good judges to the tournament and put on a good show (and the MB students do a great job keeping things running). If you live in the South and don’t make it to this tournament, you’re missing out!
On to the substance of today’s post: what position will win the TOC?
I’ll try not to answer my own question (since I’m more interested in others’ thoughts), but I will say this: debaters are doing themselves a strategic disservice by running away from the plausibly true positions on this topic. I describe the loss as a “strategic” one, because I’m reasonably certain that no one will be persuaded by pedagogical risks.
The debates that start off on dubious premises (thanks to ridiculous case positions) almost always become side-tracked by theoretical and procedural questions that can rarely be resolved predictably. This is especially true in elimination rounds against strong competitors—the marginal utility of a “non-stock” position is significantly diminished when assured that your opponent will either shift the debate to theory or respond with an even more “outside the box” argument. The race to the bottom of absurdity can quickly become a counterproductive exercise, or one that at best terminates in a coin-flip decision.
While I hesitate to make any predictions, I certainly hope that high-level debates will explore the contextually unique accounts of self-defense that tend to permeate this topic in real-world discussion. I believe that the most researched account of this issue can and should take center stage. Off-the-wall positions may be decisive in prelims and lesser tournaments, but the most consistently and universally successful positions are true ones.
What do you expect to see come out on top?
The Necessary but Insufficient Burdens of Self-Defense by Stephen Babb
The debate world’s head is exploding at the proposition of Affirmative debaters having to demonstrate that repeated domestic abuse meets the multiple conditions for qualification as “self-defense.” For deadly force to be justified as self-defense, the conventional logic is that certain requirements must be met, namely: the threat must be imminent, and deadly force (as opposed to less deadly alternatives) must be necessary for someone to prevent serious harm from being inflicted. Proportionality may also be considered a requirement insofar as it wouldn’t be acceptable to use deadly force to stop a minor affront or injury.
Read more →