As participants in the debate community, coaches, judges, and competitors experience shifts in trends that may lead to innovations in style and sophistication of argument, but that also give rise to gamesmanship and deception in rounds. A primary concern of this coach and debate critic centers on the apparent movement in debate away from arguing the specifics of the resolution to instead attempting to find an argument to which one’s opponent will be unable to respond. This results in a win on the technical grounds that one’s opponent did not adequately respond to outlandish arguments, rather than a win on the merits of a particular side of the resolution. Frustration results when a debate ballot must be decided based on the debaters’ discussion of tangential arguments on the flow rather than on arguments that seem more relevant to the resolution.

Of late in LD rounds, the focus of argumentation has moved from the actual resolution to what has been deemed “The Framework.” This term seems to mean something between a filter though which one should hear the arguments and an effort to debate the issues at a higher level through the use of a particular perspective, such as Rawlsian justice or Lockean social contract. More recently these theoretical perspectives are those of avantgarde philosophers such as Zizek and other favorites. Such “framework debates” seem to distance the debate from the resolution into a theoretical discussion of differing philosophical perspectives, an idea which has merit in a different forum; however, it seems that the debaters advocating these frameworks rarely have a complete understanding of the theory and are merely using the framework as a strategy to either drag their opponent off course (the dreaded “time-suck”) or to intimidate their oppo nent who may not be as well-read (or well- carded).

Theory and philosophy inherently inform our perspectives on issues, and a debate which exposes these implicit ideas is warranted. However, when the activity of debate becomes more about the manipulation of technical skills (such as rate of delivery, uniqueness of arguments, and complexity of thought) as opposed to a frank discussion of the resolution, it seems that debate is no longer as much a conversation as it is a game. Coaches are left to decide whether to teach students to stick to the fundamentals or to play this new game. Debates between competitors from each camp are not pleasant to watch, nor does it seem these debates are satisfying for either debater.

Debate is about more than winning rounds. And so, I propose that debaters take a step back and join me in a radical notion from the world of literary performance. In forensic performance events (dramatic, humorous, duo, etc.), “framing” a performance sets the boundaries through which the audience will perceive the performance. The performer and the character(s) whom s/he embodies are seen through this frame, which is communicated through the teaser, the introduction, the attitude and posture of the performer, and the skill with which the world of the text is created for the audience. The rhetorical value of the performance is as important as the textual source from which it is created. And performers must suspend their judgment of the characters in the text in order to sell their performances. In debate rounds, debaters also function as performers, advocating a given side of the resolution regardless of their personal views.

Skilled critics in the performance world can evaluate and compare perfor mances regardless of their personal views on the material being performed. Frequently, performance competitors receive comments concerning whether or not they as actors meet the demands of the literature. Critics in debate, however, may critique the performance aspects of debate through speaker points while evaluating arguments independently of their presentation. However, students rarely value the high-point-loss in debate, and the low- point-win results in frustration if speaker points are crucial to breaking into elimination rounds.

And this is why the framework debate is important. The seamless blend of rhetorical appeal with substantive argument is what debaters ought to pursue. There are some arguments that for some critics are more appealing than others because they just “make sense.” Arguments that don’t make sense to some critics make sense to others. The interesting thing is that reading someone’s paradigm on the NDCA website or attempting to discern the matrix of argument preference in a paradigm book will rarely help debaters determine which arguments will make sense to which critics. As a result, debaters resort to relying on stereotypes when encountering critics: lay judges, college judges, coach judges. Further, judges on the local and national circuits become preferred not due to quality, but rather due to predictability or familiarity. Judges willing to listen to the spread are preferred by speed demons. Traditionalists will prefer judges who want to hear the value-standard debate. This negatively impacts the activity by discouraging students from pursuing the essential skills necessary for persuasion, as students are drawn into the politics and status that have overtaken the national circuit, as opposed to debating in an effort to understand the merits of a given position and to persuade a reasonable audience to a given point of view. It seems to me that students ought to advocate the resolution in a way that reflects their own viewpoints, and that is grounded in sound logic. Debate judges would prefer to vote for a particular side of the resolution because the arguments make sense, not because they were confused by the debate but don’t want to appear ignorant or inept.

Given that the most recent LD topics have been about US politics, it is only natural that the arguments of late have focused on whether or not the affirmative or negative positions have any real-world impacts or any potential to solve the problems of the status quo. In debates concerning US immigration policy and judicial activism, the framework debates that I have heard rely on obscure philosophical theorists or classic political traditions regarding the role of government and its institutions with regard to rights protection. Framing the arguments around the essential conceptions of “who deserves the protection of government” is an excellent way to derive arguments to support a particular side; the use of obscure, difficult to understand, or overly complex theories is where debaters err. I am not saying that all LD debates should revolve around social contract theory or the philosophical underpinnings of the traditional philosophers. But, I don’t believe that it is reasonable for someone to explain Nietzsche in 15 seconds and convince me that because nihilism is alive and well, there is a link to denying immigrants rights. This is a ridiculous example, but it illustrates the problem debaters can create for themselves by making outlandish arguments that don’t seem to make sense. They may confuse their opponent and the judge in the process.

My new advocacy for the framework debate is the byproduct of my annoyance with the obscure, the overly complex, and the flavor-of-the-month-philosopher combined with extensive reading of George Lakoff’s works on metaphorical understanding and a background in the rhetoric of performance. It seems to me that in order to frame a debate, you need to understand how people “see.” Metaphor is the key to understanding. Lakoff argues that we have clear metaphors by which we live, and that our notions of the world are built on two clearly understood family metaphors: the Strict Father model and the Nurturant Parent model. In his book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Lakoff reveals the most deep-seated differences between progressive and conservative thought as they extend from these metaphors.

Since these metaphors implicitly form our views of politics, and are grounded in notions of what is moral or immoral, debaters wishing to successfully frame a debate need to articulate positions expressly in these terms. Judges do not separate themselves from their politics or their real-world experiences as they listen to argumentation. Rather, judges listen to see whether or not the argument makes sense, which in turn is rooted in metaphors. For example, in Moral Politics, Lakoff discusses how liberals conceptualize governmental regulation as the protection of those who cannot protect themselves, while conservatives see governmental regulation as interference with the pursuit of self-interest by people trying to make a living. Depending on the judge’s moral viewpoint, then, one of these arguments will be more appealing than the other in the course of the debate. The interesting twist is that, according to Lakoff, most individuals understand and appreciate both the nurturant parent and the strict father, and these two metaphors will compete for primacy, depending on the issue and the way in which the debate is framed. So the debater’s job is to articulate the argument in such a way that it makes sense to the judge, in spite of her politics.

I believe that creating arguments rooted in metaphorical thinking enables students to consider their own points of view on issues. Part of debate is developing your own moral compass so that you can challenge your own ideas and morals and come away with a more solid understanding of why you believe what you believe. Novices who balk at topic positions because their basic beliefs are challenged are experiencing this at an intuitive level. Novices must still be taught to step away from their personal responses in order to argue both sides of a resolution; however, more mature debaters may wish to consider their own metaphorical conceptions of the world and government as they decide which arguments to make with regard to resolutions. By framing different arguments with different compelling metaphors, debaters may experience less cognitive dissonance (that disquieting sense of schizophrenia) as they debate each side of a resolution.

Which brings me to the application of the tools of metaphor and morality in the debate. Let’s consider the January-February 2006 topic: Resolved: The use of the state’s power of eminent domain to promote private enterprise is unjust. No doubt our conceptions of justice are rooted in the notion of what is fair. But fair to whom? I am sure that conceptions from Nozick and Rawls, as well as the opinions of Scalia and Ginsberg, are already written into current cases on the topic. But the deeper question is, why are we drawn to the logic of Nozick or Rawls, Scalia or Ginsberg? Why does the central notion of economic fairness mean for some that the government should do what is necessary to strengthen the economy, while for others it means that the government should protect the interests of all citizens regardless of economic status? If one believes that poverty is a blight that can be eradicated, the issues related to poverty eradication become centered on whether the individuals living in poverty are responsible for their own circumstances, and whether the solutions offered will solve for the cycle of poverty, or solve the blight by moving those individuals elsewhere and, in effect, conceal the issue. The topic is difficult because traditionally liberal viewpoints become seemingly conservative on this topic. The answer lies in going to the deeper level concerning individual rights versus state power, and in the notions of what would be best for society as opposed to individual property holders.

Framing the debate on the state’s power of eminent domain is ultimately rooted in one’s conception of the role of government in the market, and in the no tion of economic justice. If you frame the debate in terms of the “nurturing parent,” it becomes a responsibility to solve the problem of poverty through the use of eminent domain as a tool to promote private enterprise in mixed-use development. The government, then, has a responsibility to regulate the private enterprises so that the individuals displaced, and not just the private enterprises, benefit from the taking of their property. And the creation of private enterprises to increase the tax base will generate revenue for the government to meet the needs of its citizens, provide more and better services, and improve the economic well-being for all. However, the use of eminent domain displaces the socio-economically disadvantaged who may be unable to remain in the redeveloped area due to a lack of resources. If those individuals are priced out of the market, it defeats the claim that the government is using its authority to provide benefits for all citizens, including the poor.

If you frame the debate in terms of the “strict father” mentality, it becomes an abuse of governmental power to take an individual’s property for redistribution to a private enterprise. Redistribution of wealth is a violation of the conservative viewpoint that the taking of property is a financial harm, and therefore, punishment. However, the same conservatism supports the notion that if model citizens were working hard enough, they wouldn’t be in poverty, and if government is a business, it shouldn’t be taking a loss. Therefore, it is a justifiable governmental action to appropriate property for development in an effort to turn a profit. The challenge for Lincoln- Douglas debaters is that the topic explicitly forces the debate into the moral realm by requiring a discussion not of what is more or less profitable, but of what is more or less just. Justice is not void of morality.

Therefore, developing an “overview” that “burdens” your opponent may be a way to drag your opponent into a debate over irrelevant issues; however, it skirts the true purpose of any debate—to discuss the relevant issues. Rather than an effort to confuse an opponent (and probably the judge) with a philosophical diatribe about some arcane theoretical position that is impossible to understand in literally a minute of explication, an honest attempt to address the philosophical underpinnings that lead to pragmatic decisions will make debates more interesting, and ultimately might generate an agreement about what is or is not just in the exercise of state power.

Regardless of the topic, framing debate is about more than setting a trap for the opposition. It is about understanding how the opposition sees the world and either working within that conception to point out the flaws, or reframing to create a more appealing possibility. If you believe that debate is about education and facilitating learning, you operate from a nurturing parent perspective. If you believe that debate is about winning at all costs and rewarding students who do so, the strict father model informs your perspective. Your rejection or acceptance of my arguments is completely grounded in the way you see the world of debate. However, in the final analysis, rounds come down to what makes sense to the listeners. And our thinking is rooted in our metaphorical understanding of debate, culture, education, politics, government, and everything else in our world.

(Dixie Waldo coaches forensics at John H. Guyer High School in Denton, Texas. President of the Texas Forensic Association, Waldo holds a Master’s Degree in Communication Studies, Radio/TV/Film, and Political Science from the University of North Texas. She also teaches AP Psychology, Government, Economics, and Theatre. )

Works Consulted

Frank, Thomas. What’s the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. NY: Metropolitan Books, 2004.

Lakoff, George. Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Press, 2004.

Lakoff, George. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 2002.

Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 2003.

“Re-examining Eminent Domain: The Conflict Between Private Property and Economic Development.” Congress