Future of L-D Debate - Battle of Wills Or Battle of Facts
I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate from 1998 to 2001.
Having just visited the New Jersey State Tournament and discussed L-D with current members, I'm hearing that the category is experiencing quite a bit of change.
Specifically, most arguments are now expected to be supported with research and backed up with hard facts - or what are called "warrants.
" This update is complete news to me and entirely different from L-D debate when I competed.
It was an entirely values-based debate that relied on philosophical arguments and logical persuasion.
So, I guess the question becomes: Is this change for the better or worse? Should Lincoln-Douglas debate stay a values-based philosophical type of debate? Or should it move more in the direction of the other forms of debate that require backup with hard facts? While I'm not entirely sure what has caused this shift and how formal or official is the change, I strongly prefer the old method.
Yes, the old method is more vague.
Yes, it's more subtle.
Yes, it can be extremely frustrating since there are few global standards and judging must always remain at least to a certain degree subjective.
But these qualities are also partially what make it so exciting.
There was something really special and exhilarating about walking into any round and knowing you had the potential to defeat your opponent.
It's kind of like football - on any given Sunday, any team can win.
In any given debate, even up against a national finalist, you had the potential to outmaneuver your opponent.
Therein lies the beauty of it; since you never really know the style of your opponent, and they didn't know your style, you always have the opportunity to find holes in your opponent's arguments and break apart his case.
If debate shifts to everything relying on facts, this nuanced character is lost.
Competition becomes a matter of who does the most exhaustive research and preparation - and not who performs the best during the round.
Lincoln-Douglas should be about being tested on the spot; not about how many hours of your life you crammed to research every possible fact related to the resolution.
Let's keep the old values-based philosophical debate we all know and loved.
Lincoln-Douglas should remain a battle of wills and not a battle over facts.
Having just visited the New Jersey State Tournament and discussed L-D with current members, I'm hearing that the category is experiencing quite a bit of change.
Specifically, most arguments are now expected to be supported with research and backed up with hard facts - or what are called "warrants.
" This update is complete news to me and entirely different from L-D debate when I competed.
It was an entirely values-based debate that relied on philosophical arguments and logical persuasion.
So, I guess the question becomes: Is this change for the better or worse? Should Lincoln-Douglas debate stay a values-based philosophical type of debate? Or should it move more in the direction of the other forms of debate that require backup with hard facts? While I'm not entirely sure what has caused this shift and how formal or official is the change, I strongly prefer the old method.
Yes, the old method is more vague.
Yes, it's more subtle.
Yes, it can be extremely frustrating since there are few global standards and judging must always remain at least to a certain degree subjective.
But these qualities are also partially what make it so exciting.
There was something really special and exhilarating about walking into any round and knowing you had the potential to defeat your opponent.
It's kind of like football - on any given Sunday, any team can win.
In any given debate, even up against a national finalist, you had the potential to outmaneuver your opponent.
Therein lies the beauty of it; since you never really know the style of your opponent, and they didn't know your style, you always have the opportunity to find holes in your opponent's arguments and break apart his case.
If debate shifts to everything relying on facts, this nuanced character is lost.
Competition becomes a matter of who does the most exhaustive research and preparation - and not who performs the best during the round.
Lincoln-Douglas should be about being tested on the spot; not about how many hours of your life you crammed to research every possible fact related to the resolution.
Let's keep the old values-based philosophical debate we all know and loved.
Lincoln-Douglas should remain a battle of wills and not a battle over facts.
Source...