UIL Cap Con 2015- Advanced LD

1. What’s Trending in #UIL
#LD
Robey Holland
Prosper High School
rgholland@prosper-isd.net

2. Special Thanks
Tim Cook- Salado High School
Michael Ritter- The Forensics Files
Minh A. Luong- Yale University
I have learned a great many things on the
progression of Lincoln Douglas Debate from
these fine educators. Without their contributions
and insight this session would not be possible.

3. The nature of LD
“Over the past few years, the nature of Lincoln-Douglas
(LD) debate has rapidly evolved. At tournaments, more
judges are giving oral criticisms, postmodern
argumentation is being utilized more frequently, new
jargon is appearing in common LD vocabulary, debaters
are speaking more rapidly, more topics introduce
questions of policy, pre-standard issues are proliferating,
more debaters are kritiking the topic and some are
experimenting with performativity. Many judges,
teachers and coaches notice that several concepts and
practices from cross-examination (CX) debate have
appeared in LD debate rounds. Whether these changes
are for the better or for the worse does not change the
fact that this change is occurring.”
Michael J. Ritter, “A Theory of Theory in Lincoln Douglas Debate (Understanding the Basic Components of Theory
Debate),” Rostrum

4. The F word… Framework
Framework is a term that is thrown around quite a bit
in LD. Unfortunately what the term “framework” might
mean to you or I is not necessarily what current LD
debaters mean when they use the term.
The result of the multiple meanings of framework that
are common on our circuit is that it can create a
barrier between the judge and the debater.
A traditional UIL judge may say in their paradigm that
they like framework debate, and the debater may
mistakenly interpret that to mean something else
entirely.

5. Framework Continued
Ultimately the word framework will always involve an
argument which can be used as a round framing
device.
Today the word framework has, to the best of my
knowledge, three distinct meanings.
1. Framework can refer to the combination of the Value
and the Criterion in a debate case. (traditional)
2. Framework can be used as an interchangeable term
for a theory argument. (application of policy)
3. Framework can describe a definitional conflict in the
debate round. (topicality without standards/voters)

6. 3 definitions for the same
term… why?!
Traditionally speaking framework in an LD round
referred to the synthesis of the Value and
Criterion.
The incorporation of policy arguments into LD
invited framework to be understood as a theory
argument.
Framework meaning definitional debate is very
common in other states, so debaters that have
the opportunity to compete on the national stage
come back with new jargon.

7. Contextual Standards
If there is one new piece of information from this
session I would like you to take home to your
students it is the concept of contextual
standards.
As a bonus for those who believe that
“progressive” arguments are polluting LD
Debate, there is nothing inherently progressive
(taken to mean policy-esque) about the usage of
contextual standards.
Contextual standards simply provide an
alternative approach Value/Criterion debate.

8. Types of Standards
Philosophic/ Abstract
The more traditional standards
of UIL LD Debate
Higher level values
This is the part of the AC or NC
that will introduce the
philosophic concept that will
serve as the underpinning for
the AFF/NEG Advocacy
Examples
The Categorical Imperative
The Social Contract Theory
Utilitarianism
Justice
Success
Contextual
You will recognize it by the
inclusion of an action
Lower level values
Examples:
Upholding a system of
checks and balances
Ensuring rights for the
oppressed.
Increasing access to
healthcare
Consistent application
of legitimate laws

9. Value judgments in the real
world
Very rarely in the real-world do we think about
the overarching value of “justice” or “social
progress” when discussing public affairs subjects
similar to those framed in Lincoln Douglas
debate resolutions. Instead, we think of
instrumental values, which are lower level values
that have a more direct relationship to the subject
matter.

10. Standards
In order to understand why contextual standards are
beneficial, it’s important that we first remind ourselves what
the purpose of a standard is. There are a number of ways
to think about value and criteria and some of the most
common are:
Standard of measurement, which establishes a unit
measurement such as dollars or other measurable
standard.
Selection mechanism, which establishes a course of
action given certain conditions. For example, John Rawls’
Difference Principle stipulates that resources should be
distributed equally and if there are any remaining
inequalities, they should be distributed to favor the least
advantaged.
“Finish line,” which merely signals success once a certain

11. Standards Continued
Means of attainment, which sets a path to reach the
value or goal. For example, a very robust debate can
be over achieving the value of economic prosperity.
Should we adopt a “trickle down” economic plan
based on tax cuts for the rich and corporations or
increased government spending on social programs?
·
Filtering mechanism, which isolates only certain
issues related to the resolution. For example,
successful debaters have used this type of criterion to
persuade judges to accept only human rights-based
arguments when determining trade policies. Given a
value or goal, most students can identify ways of
determining proper criteria, given some coaching.
The two most common stumbling blocks are to try to
apply several standards of measurement, some of
which might conflict, instead of a single criterion and
thinking too narrowly about what constitutes a

12. Problems with the
traditional/abstract method
Most Lincoln-Douglas debaters identify a very
abstract value such as “justice” or “progress” and
try to apply it to a specific empirical context
stipulated in the L-D resolution. The result is a
lack of context and precision because abstract
values are “too high” for empirically-applied L-D
resolutions to be adequately analyzed in just 13
minutes.
This is tantamount to using an ax when, in
actuality, a scalpel is required.

13. Problems Continued
It promotes shallow analysis and is difficult for
judges to understand.
Many judges do not see the “value” in
contemporary value debate rounds because use
of overly abstract values results in a loss of
meaning and relevance as it is applied to the
resolution.

14. Here’s a problem you didn’t
expect:
Using the highest, most abstract value is exactly
the wrong standard for today’s applied Lincoln-
Douglas debate resolutions.
Debaters who claim that their value should be
upheld because “it is the highest value in the
round” are not only setting themselves up for a
much tougher argumentative burden, but they are
actually providing reasons why their value should
not be used in the round.
The “higher” the value is the more removed from
the debate topic it will likely be.

15. 99 Problems
Use of abstract values and even worse, focus of
the debate over competing philosophical
theories, sidesteps or completely ignores the
discussion over the actual debate resolution.
So we end up having the same tired debate
between the merits of Utilitarianism v. Deontology
instead of actually talking about the topic area.
This is recycled analysis from resolution to
resolution. Debaters are learning nothing by
engaging in this reductive debate for years on
end.

16. Benefits of Contextual
Standards
Resolutional Relevance- keep debates focused
and relevant to the resolution, assisting judges
with decision making and making the debate
more educational for students.
Argument Selection- Tailors debate analysis to
the requirements of the debate topic and helps
justify their selection of issues for the debate.
The new standard for criteria or decision rules is
that they provide a clear “bright-line” standard for
argument evaluation.

17. Benefits Continued
Contextual standards meet all 5 conceptions of
the function of a standard mentioned earlier:
standard of measurement
selection mechanism
finish line
means of attainment
filtering mechanism

18. Example
Topic: Business
Success
Traditional Practice:
Abstract Values and
Criterion
New Contextual
Standards
Value(s) Justice Due Process
Criterion Social Contract
Theory
Consistent application
of legitimate laws
Comments Vague and offers no
clear standard for
evaluation. Lacks
resolutional context.
Isolates one
interpretation of
justice and offers a
clear standard for
evaluation. Is also
grounded in the topic
area.

19. Final Thoughts on
Contextual Standards
Benefit to the debate round: judges will find
themselves intervening far less often when
bright-line standards for evaluation are explicit in
the debate.
Benefit to the debater: When we teach our
students to carefully craft a rule that sets a
standard or standards for making a decision, we
will have empowered them with a tool that will
serve them well for the rest of their lives.

20. Technical Debate
Speed will always be subjective. Clearly, there is a
difference between increased pace and “rapid-fire”
delivery. The question is what is too fast?
Paul Moffitt discusses in his Rostrum article, The
Questions Dividing Us:
“I know I am not the only one to notice how the pace
of LD rounds, especially those at the higher levels of
state and national tournaments, seems to have
gotten faster. Let’s face it: 38 minutes just isn’t what it
used to be. The effects of increasing rates of delivery
on the world of debate has been a contentious topic
in many a Rostrum article over the years.”

21. Why is speed increasing?
1. More argumentation in LD, longer cards, etc.
2. The audience. They want it and reward it.
3. Cheap strategy to win!

22. Line by Line
Line by line is point by point refutation of an
argument, usually with multiple arguments; often
distinguished from a “big picture” approach.
AC NC 1AR
Cri- Utility 1. No real weighing
mechanism
1.---
2.---
2. “Greatest Good” can’t
be defined
1.---
2. ----
3. There is no threshold
for the utilitarian
approach
1. ---
2. ----

23. Theory
Theory is a broad term the “debate community”
uses for checking abuse. Theory arguments are
seen in LD debate rounds, when some type of
style, position or advocacy is abusive. The last
few years have seen an influx of theoretical
issues.
Michael J. Ritter wrote in A Theory of Theory in
Lincoln Douglas Debate:
“Theory debates help students shape their
opinions of how debate should function, which
furthers efforts to maintain those valued qualities
of the activity.”

24. Theory Continued
Two things you should know about theory
argumentation:
1. Most theory arguments stem from some type of in-
round implication (fairness or education). These types
of implications explain why in-round abuse is enough
for your judge to vote of theory.
2. All good theory arguments must be structured. A
proper theory argument, should first explain where
the violation of theory actually takes place. Then it
should explain why this violation or abuse is enough
for the judge to pull the trigger.

25. Components of a proper
theory argument
(1) An interpretation of how debate should
function;
(2) A reason the practice of another debater is
not included under this interpretation;
(3) Reasons why the interpretation is good for
debate;
(4) What common value or values the
interpretation promotes; and
(5) An actual impact, or how the judge should
weigh the argument.

26. How theory has crept into
UIL LD
Over the past few years, a common addition to
the AC and the NC are “observations.”
Observations function as lay theory.
By that, I mean that they still function as round
framing arguments.
What they lack, however, is the proper structure
of a theory argument which is requisite for good
theory debate.

27. UIL Theory Continued
Why do they lack the proper structure?
It is easier to make the average UIL state judge
vote for an observation than a proper theory shell.
More likely there opponent will drop the argument
if it is blippy.
Why are kids reading this argument in the first
place?
One of the easiest ways to win the debate round if
the argument is dropped. The theory burden
almost always shifts the ground of the round in a
way that disadvantages the opponent.

28. Policy Arguments
Given many of the topics have been policy in
nature, “policy debate” concepts have entered
into LD debate.
1. TOPICALITY. the question of whether or not
the affirmative in Lincoln Douglas case meets the
intent and or letter of the debate resolution. If it
does not meet the intent or wording it can be
attacked as “untopical”.

29. Policy Continued
2. COUNTERPLAN. A counterplan is a negative substitute
for the affirmative plan. Or, in Lincoln Douglas debate, it is
more likely to be a substitute for the action (or agent of
action) advocated in the wording of the debate topic.
Occasionally the topic itself might suggest replacing one
plan with another.
Consider the topic “Resolved: Juveniles charged with
violent crimes should be tried and punished as adults”.
Without calling them counterplans many negative debaters
could use counterplan arguments. In as little as one
sentence or as much as a whole case some negative
debaters argued that juveniles be tried as adults but be
punished in a new category of jail or prison rather than
adult jails. The counterplan strategy under this topic is to
say that “even if” there is a problem there is a better
nontopical way to deal with it.

30. Policy Continued
3. DISADVANTAGES. A disadvantage shows a
harm that comes from, or is exacerbated by,
supporting the debate resolution. Negative
Lincoln Douglas debaters have used
disadvantages since the event was created but,
until recently, rarely used the word disadvantage.
4. Case Turns. A primary method current LD’ers
utilize to win the impact debate. Instead of
reading simple case defense against their
opponents case, they are reading arguments that
impact turn the opponents advocacy.

31. Kritiks
The kritik has moved out of the policy sphere and is now
comfortably made its way into many LD debate rounds.
Some debaters are using the typical CX debate structure
for their criticism. (Link, Implication, Alternative)
On the national circuit debaters are reading kritiks as a way
to generate more offense in the 1AR, and also as a means
to check the 1AR time skew. (Gendered Language K)
In LD critical arguments are often being read as case
arguments.
Example- Reading Deleuze cards to indicate that the
affirmative does not solve for the “root cause” of the issue
in the debate round.

32. Evidence
Evidence is becoming a lot longer than it used to
be. There is an added emphasis on the need for
evidence to warrant an argument, not merely
make a claim.
This is really good for debate
But necessarily makes debaters increase speed
LD rounds are progressively becoming a battle of
the evidence utilized the debaters, not a big
picture debate about the topic area.