Print Article

Debate Theory is not a collection of stagnant principles; rather, it is an evolving discipline caught between historical convention and practical reality. 1 One consequence of this evolution is that even the ultimate goals of competitive debate are in flux; therefore, any debate analysis must begin by addressing the author’s beliefs about the fundamental purpose of debate.

According to University of Oregon Rhetoric Professor David A. Frank, there are two very different theoretical understandings about the outcomes resulting from participation in academic debate. One view is that competitive debate is strictly a game,2 with no cross application. The other perspective maintains that debate is about fostering broad-based proficiencies that translate to the real world. This author takes the later approach, arguing that debate participation results in significant pragmatic skill development.

One additional codicil is required before moving onto the thesis of the article. This analysis does not dispute the clearly recognized benefit of any form of scholastic debate. As former Cherry Creek High School multiple Diamond Key Coach Gary Addington3 said, any debate knowledge is infinitely preferable to no debate experience.

The focus of this paper is to suggest a framework for evaluating different forms of academic debate, as well as various trends in the discipline. Examinations using assessment tools achieve two desirable ends. First, one can consider the educational value of the various types of debate. The second advantage is that specific areas of contention become part of a larger discussion, rather than isolated technical controversies. For example, the utilization of a weighing mechanism could inform deliberations of topics ranging from spread debate to the underdeveloped condition of Ted Turner Debate or the impromptu nature of Parliamentary Debate.

This discussion proposes the idea that Lincoln-Douglas Debate is the most comprehensive form of high school competitive debate; therefore, Lincoln-Douglas Debate is an effective device to use to review the broad educational benefits of other forms of secondary level debate. In order to lay the groundwork for development of the idea of using Lincoln-Douglas Debate as an evaluation tool, one must first explore why Lincoln-Douglas Debate can serve this role.

By reviewing the various potential skills developed through participation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, evidence emerges illustrating that it provides the broadest educational value.

The next section of this paper looks at a selection of skills applicable to Lincoln-Douglas Debate. The analysis then endeavors to compare the same set of skills to Policy Debate, Oregon-style Parliamentary Debate4 and Ted Turner Debate.5

The final section explores a few current debate issues, analyzing them using the proposed Lincoln-Douglas rubric. The topics discussed are spread debate, the lack of a definition of Ted Turner Debate and the impromptu nature of Oregon-Style Parliamentary Debate.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate offers participants a plethora of potential skills. The first of these skills involve various forms of communication. Of all of the debate forms, Lincoln-Douglas requires the most sophisticated speaking style. Participants should speak clearly, provide eye contact, use vocal variety and timing and pay attention to their audience.

Effective writing abilities are another phase of the communication skills honed in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Students have the opportunity to create graceful and interesting discussions, analogies, stories and arguments that move effectively from the written word to the oral presentation.

Participants also learn about significant thinkers and important philosophical questions. Philosophical research develops competence in identifying and cogently explaining various areas of either abstract or pragmatic disagreement.

The process of wrestling with “the big questions” helps students become proficient debaters. For example, accomplished L-D Debaters can identify the spirit of a resolution and deliberate the core Western Values intrinsic to most L-D Debate topics. Lincoln-Douglas debate also forces students to reason broadly. One result of encouraging global thinking is that cross-examination periods are often more effective and efficient. L-D Debaters also employ empirical research to augment theoretical arguments.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate provides equal division of ground by not following Policy Debate structures delineating affirmative and negative burdens6 By utilizing open-ended decision criteria, the critic can award the ballot to the best debater.

Lincoln-Douglas debate is the most educational form of debate because it translates into the broadest array of applications for the real world. Skills like proficiency in public speaking, grounding in philosophical dilemmas, the ability to analyze an issue and the development of strong organizational techniques are educational outcomes desirable for life.

The next section of this paper looks at different forms of debate using the proposed Lincoln-Douglas model. The first type of debate analyzed is Policy, or Cross-Examination Debate.

Communication ills proliferate in Policy Debate. For example, participants often focus all of their energy and speaking time on covering as many issues as possible. One unfortunate result of this tendency is that Policy Debaters can develop poor speaking skills. Some Cross-Examination debaters speak so quickly that they sound like typewriters—resulting in gasping for air—this is not a desired result of public speaking activities. Various forms of oral communication suffer when speed becomes the guiding goal. These elements include eye contact, vocal variety, timing and attention to the audience.

The ability to translate the written word into an effective oral presentation is an important form of communication that is under-utilized in C-X Debate. Policy Debaters rarely provide stories or analogies or infuse their speeches with humor. If communication is a life skill derivable from competitive debate, elements of the activity that circumvent this goal should engender discussion about possible change.7

Research is clearly a cornerstone of Cross-Examination Debate; however, few Policy Debaters take the time to develop a good grasp of basic philosophical ideas and analysis. The unfortunate result is that while C-X Debaters have extensive understanding of a few specific topics, this knowledge rarely translates well into the real world. Another problem with researching facts over philosophical ideas is that C-X debaters sometimes have difficulty understanding their evidence and/or evaluating the reliability of their sources.

Fair division of ground is a topic of much discussion in Policy Debate. While the concept of division of ground comes from the realm of legal advocacy and is critical to the definition of Policy Debate, this issue can be problematic. The educational benefits of debate are eroded when a round becomes exclusively about who has the ground to present what positions. Division of ground is an area that needs restraint; therefore these arguments should be reserved for instances involving clear abuse.

The topic of division of ground leads into the issue of technicalities. Cross-Examination Debate is very legalistic, which is a great advantage to certain individuals, but does not result in generalized real life cross application. The positive side to basing decisions on technicalities is that students learn that ignoring technicalities can result in unfair consequences. The problem with debate technicalities is that sometimes the less adept debate team wins. On the other side of this argument is that the winning team is the one that convinced the judge, so by default they are the better team. This issue does not have a clear answer, but like the quandary posed by debate technicalities warrants thoughtful management to prevent Policy Debates from degenerating into non-educational experiences.

Other concerns relate to research practices. Analytical skills can succumb to volume of evidence. Strong, clear organization can capitulate to the desire to provide as much information as possible. Both of these tendencies cause real problems. Because even experienced listeners retain less information than they hear, the effectiveness of an entire debate presentation suffers when speeches contain massive evidence without clear organization or analysis.

The intention of this analysis of Policy Debate is not to disparage the activity. Cross-Examination Debate is an extremely rigorous and time-consuming activity. The reason for the critique is to encourage further recognition and discussion of areas of concern.

Parliamentary Debate is a debate format that began on the collegiate level. The Parliamentary Debate discussed in this article is the type practiced in Oregon known as Public Debate.8 This is the least formal of the academic debates9 and produces the most problematic issues. While this author firmly believes that any debate experience is better than no experience at all, the problems in Public Debate are significant.

Communication skills are important in Public Debate. Students should employ eye contact, vocal variety and timing. Participants also need to pay attention to their audience. The issue with oral communication in Public Debate may be the reverse of that in Policy Debate because Public Debate decisions sometimes rest on which team has better oral communication skills. Such decisions fail to address traditional debate skills such as logical reasoning and cogent analysis. This problem is especially troubling because the rules prohibit participants from using evidence in the preparation room or during the debate round.10

Writing proficiency receives even less emphasis in Public Debate. Students do not have the time to create a speech. While analogies, stories, and humor are good devices to employ in Public Debate, they are often incongruous and disorganized because of the impromptu nature of the event.

Research and knowledge of philosophy is a theoretically good idea in Public Debate; unfortunately, this is not pragmatically common. The reality is that some students compete in Public Debate to avoid the work entailed in participating in one of the more academically rigorous debate forms; therefore, Public Debate does not sufficiently promote the educational values of broad knowledge and effective analysis. A very real consequence of this situation is that students often make inaccurate statements and propose academically questionable arguments.11

Public Debate under-emphasizes traditional debate skills like cross-examination. Students can ask questions during speeches; however, employing this device often creates a distraction rather than an educational exercise. Allowing questions during speech time also detracts from the person speaking.

Issues like division of ground rarely occur in Public Debate rounds. The basic technical elements of debate are missing. While the Oregon Debate Community acknowledges these problems, a solution is not easy.12 This author encourages further exploration of this form of debate, because educational skills are currently suffering.

The final type of debate for analysis is Public Forum, or Ted Turner Debate. This style of debate is a hybrid based on the television program Crossfire.13 This form of debate seeks to make debate available to a lay audience and requires judges to be unfamiliar with traditional forms of debate. Because Ted Turner is new, there are procedural issues that need analysis prior to fully evaluating the educational value of this debate form.14

Communication skills are very important in Ted Turner Debate. Because the judge is a “lay” judge, they are very likely to put considerable weight on both oral and written presentations. Participants need eye contact, vocal variety and timing, and must pay attention to their audience. Ted Turner Debaters often discover that analogies, stories, and humor are very effective tools in this debate form.

Research and philosophical understanding are skills augmented by participation in Ted Turner Debate. Effective speeches contain evidence and provide analytical support for the positions advocated by the teams. Because of the very limited time available in the debate, drawing broad conclusions is not as common as it is in Lincoln-Douglas debate.

Participants in Ted Turner Debate are very good at cross-examination. Because of the emphasis placed on the questioning portion of this debate form, students seem to think ahead about possible questions.

Ted Turner debate clearly has the potential to make debate more available to a broader range of students and to more members of the public.15 Participants will likely learn many of the valuable skills inherent in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, albeit on a more cursory level.

The Lincoln-Douglas evaluative paradigm is also useful for analyzing specific issues in debate. For example, one can review trends like spread debate, decide if the lack of Ted Turner Debate rules hurts educational value, or analyze the impromptu nature of Oregon-style Parliamentary Debate.

In the first instance, the Lincoln-Douglas rubric points to spread debate minimizing educational value. The use of massive amounts of evidence only proves that the student can gather a lot of evidence. The use of many arguments is usually a tactic to throw off an opponent, rather than an effort to gain educational benefits from the round. Spread debate causes organization, logic, and reasoning to suffer. Spread debating discourages critical analysis of evidence and clear understanding of source material. These results are undesirable under the Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm. Spread debate appears to be of little educational value and should therefore be discouraged.

Another question that the Lincoln-Douglas evaluative paradigm can address is if the lack of ground rules in Ted Turner debate is detrimental. If students do not know the skills that are required, they will have a difficult time getting the most educational value from the debate. Lincoln-Douglas is a good benchmark because required skills are easy to determine. This is not the case with Ted Turner. The use of lay critics complicates this situation. When students and judges are both trying to establish the rules of the game, predictable educational benefits become more difficult to determine. This debate form definitely needs more study.16

Finally, one can ask if impromptu debate—exemplified in Oregon-style Public Debate—is educational. The concept of impromptu eliminates many of the skills necessary in academic debate. Speaking is over-emphasized. The other real problem is that students tend to participate for the purpose of competition rather than education. These issues make Public Debate a matter for further discussion.

Debate theory is complicated; the use of an evaluative tool helps illuminate some of these complications. The Lincoln-Douglas paradigm provides an opportunity to look at some of the educational skills and issues involved in academic debate. Discussions of debate theory might utilize some of the analysis provided in this paper to evaluate the educational benefits and goals of persistent issues, upcoming trends or theoretical questions. Ultimately, debate is an educational activity and the community is responsible for the quality of that educational experience.

1. Many of the changes at the secondary level result from revisions on the collegiate circuit. Parliamentary Debate is one such example.
2. The purpose of this article is not to take issue with the idea that competitive debate is only a game. However, the games playing paradigm challenges the aspiration of the very people who coach and teach the activity and seems logically flawed. As an educator, one should hope for extended value from scholastic experiences. Undeniably, debate has elements of a game, especially strategy—offensive and defensive positioning—and winning and loosing. However, this reality does not lead to labeling the entire activity un-educational. The flaw in the games playing position could be that it assumes that games, by definition, have no merit. Oran Hudson of the Be Someone Program would certainly disagree with the idea that pure games—chess in his case—have no meaning outside their existence as games. Mr. Hudson successfully uses chess to impart life changing skills and values to intercity youth. During his August 5, 2004 interview on the Travis Smiley Program, Mr. Hudson explained the relationship between his involvement in chess and his success in life; the impact was so significant that Mr. Hudson is devoted to passing on these skills to future generations of disadvantaged African American Youth.
3. My coach and mentor.
4. Also known as Public Debate.
5. Also known as Public Forum Debate.
6. Stock Issues, for example.
7. The Discourse/Performance movement addresses this issue; however, this cure is worse than the original problem. See the Louisville Project for further information about this movement.
8. Impromptu Team Debate is a good name for this form of debate.
9. The topic for these debates comes from three possible topics—often related to current events. Each team eliminates one of the topic options and the debate consists of the remaining subject. The only resource—besides general knowledge—team members can use is a dictionary. Participants have thirty minutes to prepare prior to the beginning of the round. Sides are determined before preparation time by a flip of a coin.
10. Disallowing evidence in a debate form presents its’ own set of serious educational problems.
11. Another real concern is that Public Debate could encourage students to invent evidence.
12. During the 2004 Oregon State Tournament Coaches Meeting, some coaches recommended discontinuing the event. The main complaint is that Public Debate at the State level was often terrible. They did not like State Debate Champions being poor debaters. However, elimination of the event is not likely for a number of reasons. First, coaches often rightly believe that some debate experience outweighs no experience. This perspective has important pragmatic consequences. Second, students are overwhelmingly opposed to the idea. Finally, outside funding is becoming available for the promotion of Public Debate.
13. While Ted Turner Debate usually involves a policy issue, it does not require many of the technical elements of Policy Debate. Ted Turner Debate is similar to Lincoln-Douglas Debate in that students prepare affirmative and negative cases in advance and the topic changes every two months.
14. For example, students flip a coin just before the debate to determine both sides and position. Therefore, the negative team could begin the debate and might even sit on the side of the room traditionally reserved for the affirmative team.
15. Unfortunately, from a coaching and technical perspective, Ted Turner is a difficult debate form. NFL rules are somewhat unclear—especially in the case of plan issues. In addition, coaching Ted Turner is difficult because it requires understanding of both C-X and L-D Theory, but cannot use any of the terminology. The issue of lay judges is also a huge problem that can result in very arbitrary decisions.
16. My opinion is that the use of lay judges is a good idea that does not work in practice. The reason is that there are some basic understandings in the judging community; these understandings do not exist among lay judges. This situation results in unfair decisions. In addition, students eventually learn technical debate skills just by their participation in the activity; yet, these skills can actually result in penalties to the debaters. These problems are serious and need attention.
    
    

(Janet C. Friedman-Pizzo is assistant speech coach at Summit High School in Bend, Oregon.)