Democracy is a fragile thing. In order for it to work, many conditions are necessary. The most obvious condition is simple access to polling places, and the right to vote in an atmosphere free of coercion. A second clear condition for Democracy to flourish is that qualified candidates should be allowed to run for office, and should be free to speak their minds - a ballot of one offers no choice. A third condition, which is perhaps less immediately obvious, is that voters need to have access to information about the candidates and what they stand for, otherwise the exercise of voting would be random and therefore devoid of meaning. A fourth condition, which is implied by the third, is that voters need to have a means of processing the information available, so that they can contrast and compare competing proposals, and make an informed decision as to which candidate they prefer, based on an analysis of the proposals espoused by each candidate.
Debate is an efficient mechanism to satisfy the fourth condition - it allows a forum in which office-seekers can directly “clash” and give reasons as to why their ideas are superior to those of their adversaries. Unfortunately, debates by candidates are quite rare - and often are not debates at all, but extended media opportunities in which statements are made without evidence, or without sufficient opportunity for challenges. If debate can be defined by one thing it can be defined by the presence of a “comparison of policies” - the process of comparing one set of concepts versus arguments against that set; this is the essential mechanism to offer democrats the process of deciding between policy options. The paucity of true debate in the public forums leaves it up to the voters to stage their own debates - not always in a formal sense, but at least to go through a process of critical appraisal of competing policy choices in order that they can at least try to make an informed decision.
By imbuing students with the tools to meet the “fourth condition” of a Democracy - the ability to compare competing policies - scholastic debate provides a critical mechanism to train students to be effective citizens, and activists in the political process. First, scholastic policy debate offers students a resolution of advocacy, and asks them to both defend and oppose a resolution which mandates governmental action. The very duality of responsibility (to both defend and to oppose the resolution, in different debate rounds) forces the future democrat to learn that there are multiple sides to a question, and that an effective defense of one position requires a thorough understanding of the opposition. Second, policy debate forces students to actively participate in a framework established by the Resolution, and in so doing they model the experience of the candidate - who must argue for voter support - and of the activist voter, who tries to sway others to her or his point of view. Third, policy debate teaches the student to appraise competing values; often a policy may have both benefits and disadvantages, and it is only the experienced debater who can accept a nuanced position, and show why a particular issue may be preferable even when one recognizes its down-side. Fourth, policy debate teaches the student to participate in an organized proceeding of advocacy; this is often the student’s first experience in such a proceeding, and thus - almost through osmosis - the student soaks up the critical components of an effective forum for the exchange of ideas: they learn process, they learn “fairness”, they learn what it is like to be judged by individuals with different preconceptions - and thus they learn how important it is to have mechanisms which allow them a hearing which will be steeped with the feel of “justice,” despite the preconceptions which an individual judge may bring to the debate.
Just as multiple conditions must be in place in order for Democracy to flourish, so too must multiple conditions be accepted in order for an effective debate to occur, and to allow an exchange of ideas and arguments which will further critical goals as such as informed choice. The first condition is a guarantee of this idea of “fairness” to both sides in a debate. The “rules of engagement”, which are often the source of considerable contention, must allow both sides to be heard in a manner which is equitable to both. Without such fairness, one cannot have the surety that the judge gets access to the information that is necessary to make an informed decision - nor does it guarantee that the debater gets a decision based on the procedural norms of the forum, as opposed to the politics or preconceptions of the judge. “Fairness” is a way to frame the rationale behind rules of procedure in general. For example, in order for the court system to earn the respect of all parties which participate in its proceedings, there must be the expectation that the law be applied in an evenhanded manner. Fairness means that when both sides go into a proceeding, there is an expectation of normality as to how the law may be applied - fairness does not mean that both sides can say whatever they want to say; it simply means that the law will be applied consistently, evenly, and in a manner in concert with prior precedent and procedure.
The importance of the procedural assurance of fairness in debate, the law, our political processes, cannot be overstated. Process issues form the structure of our institutions - it is the faith in our processes which gives decisions the weight of law, or even the weight of “rightness”.
“Fairness” therefore needs to be given the highest form of respect and procedural sway in a debate round. It is one reason we have a resolution - to give both sides a basis for debate, and to make sure that both sides will bring to the debate arguments based on a common ground. Were the resolution irrelevant to either the affirmative or the negative, then one side or the other could not be expected to participate in the debate, and thus the process would be fundamentally flawed.
It is to maximize procedural fairness, and thus imbue a faith in the process of debate - this first forum for the free exchange of ideas - that one must insist on asking debaters to limit their approaches to mechanisms which can be reasonably predicted. Debate has developed a theoretical basis to guarantee such predictability, and it is comprised by the ideas of “topicality” and “competitiveness.” First, the Affirmative must be “topical”; they must offer a plan which falls within the subset of policies prescribed by the Resolution. Without topicality, the Affirmative could bring literally any issue to the debate forum - and the negative could not hope to respond, thus destroying the process. Second, the Negative must be competitive with the Affirmative. If the Negative’s approach does not compete with the affirmative’s then the Negative could bring up any issue or attempt to switch the framework of the proceeding in an infinite number of ways, and again there would be no way that the Affirmative can be expected to be prepared with a response. In a prior article, I proposed the idea of “counter topicality” - to ask that the Negative be competitive with the Resolution. An alternative way of framing the same concepts is to say that the Negative must simply be competitive with the Affirmative Plan - not just when offering a Counterplan, but also when offering a competing framework to that offered by the Affirmative. There are theoretical implications to either approach - but the main point is to assure a process which is fair, simply because it allows both the Negative to come in to the proceeding knowing the set of arguments which will be introduced by the Affirmative, and, critically, that so too may be the Affirmative be able to predict that the Negative’s approach will be based on the Plan.
It is up to the judge to enforce this idea - but it is critical that judges hear this call: without their fair and evenhanded enforcement of the fundamental processes of the activity... without the judges providing both sides with the assurance that they can enter the debate on an even footing, with the ability to prepare in an equitable fashion, judges will be teaching debaters that there is no procedural certainty which is available to them, and that debate can be made into a “rigged game” which they cannot overcome through work and preparation. This would be a tragic lesson to give the debater. What is the option for the democrat if the process forbids change based on logic? What is the option for the activist if the law cannot be altered according to the rules of the land? The option is reminiscent of the sort of totalitarian frameworks which exist in other countries - where the law does not serve everyone equally, and where there is no faith in the decisions of the courts or of the lawmakers.
Judges in competitive frameworks thus have a responsibility that they may not have really considered in full force; they are teaching students whether the system in which they compete is worth engaging in, or whether it is not. This “system” of which I speak is not tied to any other political system or idea except the idea of democracy, that each individual can be heard in a fair process. If the very first politically-styled system encountered by the student cannot be kept fair, what lessons will be learned from figuring that out? And what mechanism will remain to teach our future leaders to form a process which can be judged admirable in the future?
We live in contentious times. We need to be rigorous in enforcing our core beliefs, and our core processes. Debate is a way of teaching those processes. Let us work as hard as possible to keep it fair. We cannot “depoliticize” it, since as we have come to learn, everything can be thought of as political - but we can make sure it is approachable in a way which feels like justice.
(David Glass is President of NDCA)
