Jump to content
nathan_debate

What Are The Major Changes In Ld Over The Last 10 Years?

Recommended Posts

I wasn't there, but these are my guesses.

1. Rise of spreading.
2. Rise of awful theory arguments.
3. I assume that "modern" authors have been increasing in popularity lately relative to a decade or more ago.
4. Different trends in the nature of topics? More pragmatically oriented ones, possibly?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume that "modern" authors have been increasing in popularity lately relative to a decade or more ago.

 

Can you be a bit more specific?  Is there a list of core authors, articles, or publications?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to imagine that in general there's just been a lot more policy-esque arguments like DAs, CPs, Ks, T, theory debate, and spreading. It seems that for better or worse, LD has pretty much done a 180 from what it what intended to do when it was created in c. 1980. Seems like LD is the new CX, PF is the new LD, and speech is...well still speech. Any thoughts on Resolved: On balance, the rise of LARPing is advantageous to LD?  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have anything specific in mind. I'm just assuming that there are fewer old dead white guys used in LD debate now than there were ten years ago. Maybe not many fewer, but I think the general trend is in that direction.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speed. It was about ten years ago when I started hearing LDers speaking as quickly as a fast, competitive policy round. At first it was only a few travelling the national circuit, then all of sudden everyone was spreading (or trying to spread).

Policy arguments. Ten years ago if you had talked about CPs, topicality, disads, or uniqueness to 85% of LDers, you would have gotten a puzzled stare. Also, in early LD the value was more important than the criterion; the shift to impacts stemming from the standard had already been made, but the value was still very important. This is much less true today.

Critical arguments. Ten years ago you were more likely to hear LDers talk about Aristotle and Locke than Zizek or Foucault. This trend was already underway ten years ago, but it has certainly accelerated.

Theory. LD has always been under-theorized, and it was about a decade ago that people started to wake up to this and exploit it. Miscellaneous burdens started appearing all over the flow. Theory arguments began to have standards for evaluation.

The breakdown in the traditional value/value criterion structure. Rolling without both of these, both clearly labeled, would have translated into a loss on many circuits ten years ago.

Decline of big picture debaters. Ten years ago pretty speakers who did a lot of grouping were still competitive at the highest levels of the activity. The shift was starting, however, to line-by-line debaters who could actually flow the round (LD flows used to be notoriously bad).

One less minute of prep. This is huge, especially for preparing the 1AR.

More straightforward case design. Even without cross-ex, you knew exactly where the offense was in the constructives. It was clearly labeled, and debaters typically had one clear path to victory. Offense is much more likely to disguised today, providing more flexibility in the rebuttal speeches. Today's debaters are more likely to write cases where they have two or three ways they can possibly win the round.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speed. It was about ten years ago when I started hearing LDers speaking as quickly as a fast, competitive policy round. At first it was only a few travelling the national circuit, then all of sudden everyone was spreading (or trying to spread).

 

I hate this and if I were a judge I would destroy the speaker points of an LD debater who tried to spread as fast as in a policy round (even though I'm aware this may be almost everyone now)

 

Policy is evidenced-based, which justifies the speed. This is also why the topics are year-long. LD is supposed to be more persuasive-based than evidenced based, and this is evidenced by the monthly changing of the topic. It SHOULD be a values, rather than impact, based debate.

 

I think that spreading in LD does a couple of things. First, it pretty much destroys the main educational purpose of that particular activity (persuasiveness, articulation, etc.) in favor of the main educational purpose of the Policy activity (research). Second, it will certainly cause kids to drop out of the activity even faster, which is awful for the community. Not everyone is cut out for policy, the learning curve for LD is (or is supposed to be) much less steep. At its core, Lincoln-Douglas debate should be about who was the most persuasive speaker and be very light on the jargon and speed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally! Someone that hates fast LD! My coach does but she doesn't qualify why, hopefully you can answer my questions.

 

I hate this and if I were a judge I would destroy the speaker points of an LD debater who tried to spread as fast as in a policy round (even though I'm aware this may be almost everyone now)

Woah why? I'd only do that if the other debater turned it into some voting issue or pointed it out, and then didn't spread. Anything else is almost judge intervention.

 

LD is supposed to be more persuasive-based than evidenced based, and this is evidenced by the monthly changing of the topic. It SHOULD be a values, rather than impact, based debate.

Why? People still put out TONS of evidence even though the topic changes every two months, and lots of arguments are recycled - kritiks, CPs, etc. That's just the progression of debate; why's that bad though, and I wanna know from a rational person - why do you think it should stay how it's traditionally been? Also what do you mean by "values, rather than impact, based" - are those two ideas separable? Aren't their impacts to bad values or viewpoints (e.g. a kritik)?

 

I think that spreading in LD does a couple of things. First, it pretty much destroys the main educational purpose of that particular activity (persuasiveness, articulation, etc.) in favor of the main educational purpose of the Policy activity (research).

Why is LD destined to be about persuasiveness and articulation? Why does spreading destroy persuasive abilities?

 

At its core, Lincoln-Douglas debate should be about who was the most persuasive speaker and be very light on the jargon and speed. 

Who decides the "core" or LD debate? judges, debaters, or some outside force like 'tradition'? If debaters debate a different way, doesn't that make the form of debate different?

 

thanks in advance

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woah why? I'd only do that if the other debater turned it into some voting issue or pointed it out, and then didn't spread. Anything else is almost judge intervention.

 

I'd disagree, judges can allocate speaker points based on debating ability, and I think it definitely hurts your ethos and articulation to be spreading. Even if a spreading LD debater absolutely crushed their opponent, I could dock them points for failing to be as good at being a persuasive speaker. That's where low-point wins come form.

 

 

Why? People still put out TONS of evidence even though the topic changes every two months, and lots of arguments are recycled - kritiks, CPs, etc. That's just the progression of debate; why's that bad though, and I wanna know from a rational person - why do you think it should stay how it's traditionally been? Also what do you mean by "values, rather than impact, based" - are those two ideas separable? Aren't their impacts to bad values or viewpoints (e.g. a kritik)?

 

 

Like I said, LD is the more accessible form of debate...to students trying to participate in the activity and "lay" people trying to listen to it. I don't think that Lincoln-Douglas has to "logically" proceed to being just two-person policy rounds. 

 

By values debate, I mean that LD debate focuses on philosophical values, what the most morally correct thing to do is, etc. as opposed to having the biggest and quickest extinction impact, which is what happens in policy. Remember that most kritiks are from modern philosophers who often assign impacts like "collective suicide" or "state-sanctioned genocide" to their philosophies  this is different from the moral framing of traditional LD debate. 

 

 

Why is LD destined to be about persuasiveness and articulation? Why does spreading destroy persuasive abilities?

 

If you watch an LD round, at least in the traditional way, debaters speak slowly and clearly, and a lot of it is self-written instead of from cards. Spreading is very contrary to how one is taught to speak clearly and persuasively in a traditional fashion. I'd love it if I could hear someone spread while having different inflections and emotional intonations, but I've never seen that happen. 

 

Who decides the "core" or LD debate? judges, debaters, or some outside force like 'tradition'? If debaters debate a different way, doesn't that make the form of debate different?

 

Tradition, I suppose. That's the way it's taught to debaters. It's more often debated in front of lay judges, people's parents and such. There's nothing preventing LD from changing, I just believe it would be good if it was a different sort of activity that was more accessible so that kids stay in the activity  and  that valued speaking skill over evidence finding skill. If not, why bother having separate events? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...