Jump to content
TyE

Can you Use a plan in LD?

Recommended Posts

Bit confused about this. Seem some things that say you can use it in progressive circuits and others that say you can't. Anyone know for sure?

 

I just had to switch to LD debate because I moved to a new school in a circuit with no CX. Is theroey a retty commonly run arguement in LD becuase i feel like that might screw me up coming over from a policy background with quite a few policy habits.

Edited by TyE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can definitely read a plan in LD on the national circuit. Definitely. The local circuits, however, I'm not so sure about.

 

But you also would need to offer an ethical FW, so you can't just read 6 minutes of advantages if that's what you really mean by plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you *can* but whether or not you should depends on your circuit. If you debate at bid tournaments or places where you could run K's without a problem when you did in policy, you should be fine.

 

As far as theory goes, it's way worse than policy theory (*puts up flame shield*) but, again, on progressive circuits it is a real thing. You hit condo good/bad and the basic stuff, in addition to LD specific things about stuff like V/VC debate or whatever that someone else can talk more about. Keep in kind that the shorter aff speech times and the longer neg speech times mean

1)Less actual development of theory, since you don't have multiple speech/response back and forths

2)RVI's are apparently a real thing (mainly for the aff to use against the neg)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you *can* but whether or not you should depends on your circuit. If you debate at bid tournaments or places where you could run K's without a problem when you did in policy, you should be fine.

 

As far as theory goes, it's way worse than policy theory (*puts up flame shield*) but, again, on progressive circuits it is a real thing. You hit condo good/bad and the basic stuff, in addition to LD specific things about stuff like V/VC debate or whatever that someone else can talk more about. Keep in kind that the shorter aff speech times and the longer neg speech times mean

1)Less actual development of theory, since you don't have multiple speech/response back and forths

2)RVI's are apparently a real thing (mainly for the aff to use against the neg)

RVIs are true args though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RVIs are true args though

That's a Meh claim at best. Certainly not in policy. In very limited situations where something goes down and the aff does have to use all of one of their short speeches for theory, maybe, but...meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no official rules in LD, only convention. I personally prefer to keep LD more orthodox and without plans and spreading and stuff like that because otherwise it just becomes Policy divided by 2 (half the people, half the time, half the arguments). I think LD should be all about values debate. If your value happens to be something like pragmatism or util, then by all means your evidence should be plan-based, but I think the real debate in LD lies not in the specific evidence behind the pragmatics of an argument and more about the philosophical groundwork for your argument.

 

I also think spreading is dumb

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in a conservative district, the legitimacy of a plan depends on the resolution.  If a single instance would allow the resolution to be affirmed, then a plan is sufficient affirmation.  Any LD plan should prove a moral obligation to do the plan.

 

('progressive' LD may allow plans even in other circumstances, but traditional areas are looking to affirm or reject the resolution as a whole - and there are resolutions where a plan is sufficient for affirmation).

 

I am much less bothered by the idea of plans in LD as I am by the policy-import of card reading.  LDers should only rarely read cards.  You should be able to explain philosophical ideas in your own words, not have to quote someone else.  If you need to prove some fact about the real world, then evidence is fine, but reading authors making argument is ridiculous - debaters can make argument without resort to quoting someone else doing it, and in LD that's what we used to do.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am much less bothered by the idea of plans in LD as I am by the policy-import of card reading.  LDers should only rarely read cards.  You should be able to explain philosophical ideas in your own words, not have to quote someone else.  If you need to prove some fact about the real world, then evidence is fine, but reading authors making argument is ridiculous - debaters can make argument without resort to quoting someone else doing it, and in LD that's what we used to do.

We aren't philosophers. Hundreds of years have been put into authors formulating arguments that debaters cut cards from. How are we supposed to reinvent all of philosophy by coming up with our own philosophical arguments without cutting cards from the people who have already dedicated their lives to this stuff?

 

To say that LDers shouldn't quote other people is to significantly hamper any sort of pursuit of real education. Even reading and then making analytical arguments cannot compare since you would have to read so much more background information to have a full understanding of the philosophy that it's not even worth it. Cutting cards avoids this harm by only focusing on the argument at hand- plus there is no good reason why someone should take someone else's argument and put it in their words when it's just as easy and less plagiaristic to actually quote people.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't philosophers. Hundreds of years have been put into authors formulating arguments that debaters cut cards from. How are we supposed to reinvent all of philosophy by coming up with our own philosophical arguments without cutting cards from the people who have already dedicated their lives to this stuff?

 

To say that LDers shouldn't quote other people is to significantly hamper any sort of pursuit of real education. Even reading and then making analytical arguments cannot compare since you would have to read so much more background information to have a full understanding of the philosophy that it's not even worth it. Cutting cards avoids this harm by only focusing on the argument at hand- plus there is no good reason why someone should take someone else's argument and put it in their words when it's just as easy and less plagiaristic to actually quote people.

 

what.

 

(Note: when i criticize quoting below, i mean extensive quoting as you find in the use of cards.  The occasional quoted sentence or two to set the tone for a contention or speech is a rhetorical device which does not suffer these consequences).

 

1. Phrasing things in your own words is not plagiarism

 

2. You are welcome to acknowledge the philosopher whose ideas you are using, even if you don't quote him or her.  You aren't reinventing philosophy (necessarily), you're explaining it.  In particular, you're explaining a particular philosophy.  No one said you can't base your explanations on sources, just that the explanation be your own.

 

3. Quoting is worse for education.  Putting it in your own words demonstrates comprehension in a way that quoting never will.  And if you can't explain, and make the arguments, in your own words, then you don't understand the arguments.

 

4. Quoting detracts from clash. Actually making arguments that are specifically directed at your opponent's arguments requires comprehension, application, analysis, and synthesis.  Just quoting someone isn't enough, you need to take what you have learned and redeploy it.

 

5. Quoting wastes time.  If you're already doing the above, you can do it without the quotes just as well as you can with the quotes.  If the quotes are necessary, it means you're failing at the above.  And since the cards should be unnecessary, you shouldn't use them.

 

6. You don't need to understand all of Western Philosophy to read and appreciate a given philosopher. Philosophers are comprehensible on their own merits.  Having a sense of the context in which they were writing may add appreciation for why those ideas arose then, but it isn't necessary to understand a philosopher's ideas.  The text stands on its own as a vehicle for understanding.  (That is, after all, the reason to write a book - to explain the idea).

 

7. LD started ~1990.  As of 1997, Minnesota was the *only* state reading cards, and had only been doing so for a year or two, and were doing it sparingly (maybe a couple per case).  Most LD debaters gave at best a short quote or two as motivation for the ideas they would discuss, typically no more than a sentence or two, with only the writer's or speaker's name as attribution.  The rest of their speech was their own words, even though they might discuss the ideas of Aristotle, Plato, Mills, Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Nietzsche, or Rawls, etc...  If LDers in the 90s could debate in their own words, LDers today can do the same.  

 

And yes, I did LD in high school, and the longest quote I ever included in a speech was 24 words long.  And in fact, most of my cases were bare bones outlines that I expanded upon and explained extemporaneously. 

 

8. Full understanding is the goal.  The scope of LD is not limited - you're defending a whole philosophic outlook, not some limited slice.  Nor are you required to defend only what some philosopher said to the letter.  You can take ideas you like and patch them together into a new tapestry - that is, LDers can do real philosophy on their own.  Application and Synthesis demands we adapt the ideas of philosophers to new contexts and draw our own conclusions.  What maxims should we will to be universal law? What conclusions should we reach if behind a veil of ignorance?  What is each person due?  We can adopt these constructs of philosophers, but we must be the ones to decide how that applies in the round and make those arguments.  

 

Bloom's taxonomy describes 6 levels of learning: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation (from lowest to highest).  Learning must be accomplished in order: you cannot comprehend without knowledge, you can not apply without comprehension, and so forth. Debate done right requires all 6, but you're arguing that debaters should only be compelled to have knowledge.  That impoverishes debate and destroys its educational benefits.  And if there is comprehension, then explaining the argument in your own words should prove to be no impossibility.

 

It's not just as easy to put the arguments in your own words.  And that is entirely the point.  To quote John F Kennedy: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,..." Similarly, debaters should make arguments in their own words, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.  

 

(I'd finally note that Parliamentary debate *forbids* the use of evidence directly, and yet somehow debate still happens.  Make your mind a sword, and you will never be unarmed.)

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to go ahead and disagree here.  I think the competitive nature of the activity solves most to all of your offense, and where it doesn't I think you're plain wrong anyways.  Specifically I don't think affirming requires you to defend a moral obligation (part of this is I commonly say those don't exist), to do the plan or defend a universal philosophical position.  Frankly when I help out LD'ers I very rarely advise some sort of unified overarching position - just position strictly limited to the confines of the res.  (also I don't necessarily agree with goodatthis either.  I think both reading or not reading cards extensively are perfectly acceptable speeches)

Edited by Sparf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what.

 

(Note: when i criticize quoting below, i mean extensive quoting as you find in the use of cards.  The occasional quoted sentence or two to set the tone for a contention or speech is a rhetorical device which does not suffer these consequences).

 

1. Phrasing things in your own words is not plagiarism

 

2. You are welcome to acknowledge the philosopher whose ideas you are using, even if you don't quote him or her.  You aren't reinventing philosophy (necessarily), you're explaining it.  In particular, you're explaining a particular philosophy.  No one said you can't base your explanations on sources, just that the explanation be your own.

 

3. Quoting is worse for education.  Putting it in your own words demonstrates comprehension in a way that quoting never will.  And if you can't explain, and make the arguments, in your own words, then you don't understand the arguments.

There are things called extensions, people articulate warrants in speeches which solves this dilemma you're talking about.

4. Quoting detracts from clash. Actually making arguments that are specifically directed at your opponent's arguments requires comprehension, application, analysis, and synthesis.  Just quoting someone isn't enough, you need to take what you have learned and redeploy it.

Most people make analytical responses to arguments anyway, besides we are really only talking about cases here.

5. Quoting wastes time.  If you're already doing the above, you can do it without the quotes just as well as you can with the quotes.  If the quotes are necessary, it means you're failing at the above.  And since the cards should be unnecessary, you shouldn't use them.

People cut cards efficiently, plus analytics tend to get wordy and hard to follow sometimes. It also takes a lot more time to write out analytics for a complex concept than it does to cut a card.

6. You don't need to understand all of Western Philosophy to read and appreciate a given philosopher. Philosophers are comprehensible on their own merits.  Having a sense of the context in which they were writing may add appreciation for why those ideas arose then, but it isn't necessary to understand a philosopher's ideas.  The text stands on its own as a vehicle for understanding.  (That is, after all, the reason to write a book - to explain the idea).

Yes, but unfortunately the structure of books make it so you have to read a lot to understand the whole argument enough to be able to articulate it exactly how you want to articulate it. The reason why people cut cards is because they're independent arguments which can come from a larger syllogism of philosopher's arguments, and if you really only want to extrapolate off of a paragraph or two, you might as well cut it at that point if you've read through it one or two times and wrote an analytical explanation+extrapolation. 

7. LD started ~1990.  As of 1997, Minnesota was the *only* state reading cards, and had only been doing so for a year or two, and were doing it sparingly (maybe a couple per case).  Most LD debaters gave at best a short quote or two as motivation for the ideas they would discuss, typically no more than a sentence or two, with only the writer's or speaker's name as attribution.  The rest of their speech was their own words, even though they might discuss the ideas of Aristotle, Plato, Mills, Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Nietzsche, or Rawls, etc...  If LDers in the 90s could debate in their own words, LDers today can do the same.  

Let's think of how LD has progressed since then. Much more complex framework debate and argumentation in general, which can all be attributed to the rise of card-cutting.

And yes, I did LD in high school, and the longest quote I ever included in a speech was 24 words long.  And in fact, most of my cases were bare bones outlines that I expanded upon and explained extemporaneously. 

 

8. Full understanding is the goal.  The scope of LD is not limited - you're defending a whole philosophic outlook, not some limited slice.  Nor are you required to defend only what some philosopher said to the letter.  You can take ideas you like and patch them together into a new tapestry - that is, LDers can do real philosophy on their own.  Application and Synthesis demands we adapt the ideas of philosophers to new contexts and draw our own conclusions.  What maxims should we will to be universal law? What conclusions should we reach if behind a veil of ignorance?  What is each person due?  We can adopt these constructs of philosophers, but we must be the ones to decide how that applies in the round and make those arguments.  

You can already do this with cards lol- people have used korsgaard to justify util, really any FW syllogism is an example of this. 

Bloom's taxonomy describes 6 levels of learning: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation (from lowest to highest).  Learning must be accomplished in order: you cannot comprehend without knowledge, you can not apply without comprehension, and so forth. Debate done right requires all 6, but you're arguing that debaters should only be compelled to have knowledge.  That impoverishes debate and destroys its educational benefits.  And if there is comprehension, then explaining the argument in your own words should prove to be no impossibility.

 

It's not just as easy to put the arguments in your own words.  And that is entirely the point.  To quote John F Kennedy: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,..." Similarly, debaters should make arguments in their own words, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.  

But with the amount of prep debaters do nowadays that becomes highly infeasible. You can't just make things harder for yourself just because it's more educational (even though the degree to which that is true is minuscule). First and foremost, debaters prep to win. There is no evidence of analytically making arguments making it easier for debaters to win, which means just because there are some educational benefits, it only makes it harder for debaters in their school lives and their debate lives, which would probably mean cutting cards is overall better.

(I'd finally note that Parliamentary debate *forbids* the use of evidence directly, and yet somehow debate still happens.  Make your mind a sword, and you will never be unarmed.)

​I've also seen parli debates and they tend to have much less clear analysis being done as well as arguments which could definitely be improved upon, compared to LD or policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Phrasing things in your own words is not plagiarism

Maybe. I could still get slapped with an honor code violation at my university for phrasing things in my own words without explicit citation because 'it's not my idea.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe. I could still get slapped with an honor code violation at my university for phrasing things in my own words without explicit citation because 'it's not my idea.'

 

Nothing stops you from describing it as "Kant's categorical imperative" or "Locke's conception of natural rights" or "Foucault's idea of biopower".  Attribution is not the same thing as quoting.  I never said you should claim ideas as your own.  Explanation and paraphrasing can maintain attribution without explicit quotation, much less primarily relying on quotation.

 

And lack of attribution is not the same thing as plagiarizing.

 

 

 

what.

 

(Note: when i criticize quoting below, i mean extensive quoting as you find in the use of cards.  The occasional quoted sentence or two to set the tone for a contention or speech is a rhetorical device which does not suffer these consequences).

 

1. Phrasing things in your own words is not plagiarism

 

2. You are welcome to acknowledge the philosopher whose ideas you are using, even if you don't quote him or her.  You aren't reinventing philosophy (necessarily), you're explaining it.  In particular, you're explaining a particular philosophy.  No one said you can't base your explanations on sources, just that the explanation be your own.

 

3. Quoting is worse for education.  Putting it in your own words demonstrates comprehension in a way that quoting never will.  And if you can't explain, and make the arguments, in your own words, then you don't understand the arguments.

There are things called extensions, people articulate warrants in speeches which solves this dilemma you're talking about.

 

In LD that pushes you into rebuttals, which are already heavily limited on time.  It's not an adequate substitute, and is frequently done with excessive reliance on the read card rather than depth of explanation because of those time limits.

 

4. Quoting detracts from clash. Actually making arguments that are specifically directed at your opponent's arguments requires comprehension, application, analysis, and synthesis.  Just quoting someone isn't enough, you need to take what you have learned and redeploy it.

Most people make analytical responses to arguments anyway, besides we are really only talking about cases here.

 

5. Quoting wastes time.  If you're already doing the above, you can do it without the quotes just as well as you can with the quotes.  If the quotes are necessary, it means you're failing at the above.  And since the cards should be unnecessary, you shouldn't use them.

People cut cards efficiently, plus analytics tend to get wordy and hard to follow sometimes. It also takes a lot more time to write out analytics for a complex concept than it does to cut a card.

 

Who said anything about writing them out?  I debated off rough sketches of cases, using my comprehension to construct explanations extemporaneously.  This reliance on pre-writing everything is detrimental not only to subject mastery and the ability to achieve subject mastery later on.  Developing this kind of skill lets me explain most evidence having only read it once, write out shorthand responses to arguments on the fly as debaters are making them, or, having heard an argument once, write out affirmative responses for my teams in 5 minutes.  (I just did the last one this past weekend at a tournament).

 

As a parliamentary debater in college, I gave a mini macroeconomics lecture in a round to explain why Greenspan was wrong about maintaining low interest rates (back in 2000), completely off the cuff in response to the other team's argument, and without prepping for it ahead of time.  Subject mastery means always having knowledge at your fingertips and being able to deploy it on command.

 

That of course means cutting cards actually takes more time across many resolutions, because you'll likely want to emphasize different aspects of arguments for different cases, whereas you can make those adjustments on your own if you understand the philosophy sufficiently to explain it.

 

6. You don't need to understand all of Western Philosophy to read and appreciate a given philosopher. Philosophers are comprehensible on their own merits.  Having a sense of the context in which they were writing may add appreciation for why those ideas arose then, but it isn't necessary to understand a philosopher's ideas.  The text stands on its own as a vehicle for understanding.  (That is, after all, the reason to write a book - to explain the idea).

Yes, but unfortunately the structure of books make it so you have to read a lot to understand the whole argument enough to be able to articulate it exactly how you want to articulate it. The reason why people cut cards is because they're independent arguments which can come from a larger syllogism of philosopher's arguments, and if you really only want to extrapolate off of a paragraph or two, you might as well cut it at that point if you've read through it one or two times and wrote an analytical explanation+extrapolation. 

 

The horrors.  I read all of Kant's Metaphysics of Morals as a sophomore in high school, and that was just September.  LDers should be reading a lot.  The goals of scholarship do not end at knowledge of minutiae.

 

And cards constrain you to whatever philosophical ground you've covered in what you cut.  The interaction of your and your opponent's arguments likely has broader implications which you will invariably miss because the minutiae you documented with cards did not encompass it.

 

7. LD started ~1990.  As of 1997, Minnesota was the *only* state reading cards, and had only been doing so for a year or two, and were doing it sparingly (maybe a couple per case).  Most LD debaters gave at best a short quote or two as motivation for the ideas they would discuss, typically no more than a sentence or two, with only the writer's or speaker's name as attribution.  The rest of their speech was their own words, even though they might discuss the ideas of Aristotle, Plato, Mills, Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Nietzsche, or Rawls, etc...  If LDers in the 90s could debate in their own words, LDers today can do the same.  

Let's think of how LD has progressed since then. Much more complex framework debate and argumentation in general, which can all be attributed to the rise of card-cutting.

 

I'm not sure I can agree that LD has progressed that much.  The argumentation is certainly not more complex, excepting only theory, most of which strikes me as frivolous and little of which depends on carded evidence.  Cards don't drive complexity, they create borders and straight jackets that limit conversations.

 

And yes, I did LD in high school, and the longest quote I ever included in a speech was 24 words long.  And in fact, most of my cases were bare bones outlines that I expanded upon and explained extemporaneously. 

 

8. Full understanding is the goal.  The scope of LD is not limited - you're defending a whole philosophic outlook, not some limited slice.  Nor are you required to defend only what some philosopher said to the letter.  You can take ideas you like and patch them together into a new tapestry - that is, LDers can do real philosophy on their own.  Application and Synthesis demands we adapt the ideas of philosophers to new contexts and draw our own conclusions.  What maxims should we will to be universal law? What conclusions should we reach if behind a veil of ignorance?  What is each person due?  We can adopt these constructs of philosophers, but we must be the ones to decide how that applies in the round and make those arguments.  

You can already do this with cards lol- people have used korsgaard to justify util, really any FW syllogism is an example of this. 

Bloom's taxonomy describes 6 levels of learning: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation (from lowest to highest).  Learning must be accomplished in order: you cannot comprehend without knowledge, you can not apply without comprehension, and so forth. Debate done right requires all 6, but you're arguing that debaters should only be compelled to have knowledge.  That impoverishes debate and destroys its educational benefits.  And if there is comprehension, then explaining the argument in your own words should prove to be no impossibility.

 

It's not just as easy to put the arguments in your own words.  And that is entirely the point.  To quote John F Kennedy: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,..." Similarly, debaters should make arguments in their own words, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.  

But with the amount of prep debaters do nowadays that becomes highly infeasible. You can't just make things harder for yourself just because it's more educational (even though the degree to which that is true is minuscule). First and foremost, debaters prep to win. There is no evidence of analytically making arguments making it easier for debaters to win, which means just because there are some educational benefits, it only makes it harder for debaters in their school lives and their debate lives, which would probably mean cutting cards is overall better.

 

I don't think it makes the actual act of debating harder.  I would say it makes the act of debating easier, because you aren't tied to particular evidence but have access to everything you understand.  But it is easier, at the moment of case construction, to simply rely on a handful of cards then to develop the understanding necessary to fully explain an idea.  You're trading one kind of easiness in the now for less versatility and power later.

 

When i read for evidence cutting in policy, I read a lot differently than I do when reading for comprehension.  I think the impact on education is actually pretty vast.  

 

It is harder to comprehend than find a couple nice turns of phrase and cut it as a card, but it streamlines the whole debating process, especially over the career of the debater.  Also, time spent does not equate to difficulty - reading solely for comprehension requires significantly less time than card cutting.

 

(I'd finally note that Parliamentary debate *forbids* the use of evidence directly, and yet somehow debate still happens.  Make your mind a sword, and you will never be unarmed.)

​I've also seen parli debates and they tend to have much less clear analysis being done as well as arguments which could definitely be improved upon, compared to LD or policy.

 

You haven't seen very good parli rounds then.  (And, depending on the type of parli you saw, there are incentives aside from clear analysis in APDA that are wholly unrelated to the lack of evidence.)

 

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...