Let's Get Weird: Innovation at the TOC, Circuit PF, and Argument Diversity

Because the Tournament of Champions is arguably the most competitive tournament of the year, the judging tends towards higher quality adjudicators that have a background in debate. As a result, the Tournament of Champions represents a concentration of circuit-style culture that is unparalleled at any other tournament in the United States. The unique cultural space at the TOC gives debaters the chance to successfully debate in particular styles – and to deploy particular arguments – that would otherwise be unsuccessful at any other competition.

This article will explore the ways in which the TOC shift towards circuit-style debate culture creates the opportunity to read new and innovative arguments.

Bigger Impacts

One of the most basic changes is to impact calculus. In most local and regional circuits for debate, judges are relatively willing to gut check large scale impact scenarios. Global war, global nuclear war, and extinction events are arguments that rarely persuade an average layperson, and debaters wisely avoid these types of argument when typically constructing cases. As a result, debaters are traditionally limited to relatively straightforward impacts – typically articulated in an amount of money lost or saved, or an amount of lives lost or saved. Impact calculus^[1] is similarly simplistic; the tired phrase "lives before money" is typically trotted out by the team winning the highest body count, and then the numbers of dead are mechanically stacked against each other. In part, the simplicity of impact calculus is a function of the short times debaters have for argument, but it is also partially a function of the simplicity of the judging pool.

The Tournament of Champions changes both factors. The overwhelming majority of the judges at this tournament have debate experience, and a strong coalition were debaters themselves or participate in college debate. As a result, these judges are typically more comfortable with both speed and unconventional arguments^[2]. The increased tolerance of speed gives debaters more time to make impact comparison arguments and debaters should take advantage of the opportunity.

Larger scale impacts change the game for several reasons. First, they introduce elements that are absent from traditional impact debate. For example, a nuclear explosion would not only directly kill an immense number of people^[3], but it would render the surrounding environment wholly useless for decades to come. Nuclear fallout would irradiate local infrastructure or agriculture, and destroy the area's productivity. It might also have harmful effects on the local environment by destroying keystone species for biodiversity or creating targeted climate effects^[4]. These additional externalities might facilitate comparison between impacts in a given round. For example, where the deaths on each side are roughly equal but only one side impacts to a nuclear explosion, debaters can suggest the additional environmental effects are a tiebreaker for the impact debate.

There are several big stick impacts I see that debaters can access on this topic. The first deals with the escalation of a Middle East war; the second deals with global warming; the third deals with economic collapse; the fourth deals with nuclear terrorism. This article is less a topic analysis than an explanation of new argument dynamics at the TOC, so the arguments will remain sketches rather than fully fleshed out and footnoted contention work.

First, the instability created by ISIL increases the likelihood of an escalating war in the Middle East. A successful campaign by the extremist Sunni ISIL is likely to provoke substantial hostility from the Shi'a Iran. A successful ISIL would both push Iran towards a nuclear weapon for self-defense and increase the likelihood of skirmishes and conflict between regional actors. Any of these minor conflicts have the potential to escalate drastically because major global powers have substantial interests in the region. For example, Russia and China both have energy stakes in the region that might provoke them to intervene in a proxy war; which then could provoke a reciprocal Western response to secure their interests in the region, with the result of a showdown between major superpowers. There are a variety of impact scenarios that debaters can pull from "Middle East instability bad" backfiles.

The second and third arguments are interrelated. The core argument is that U.S. intervention would irritate Iran and cause them to respond in some negative way. Since mid-2014, Iran literally told the United States to hop off^[5] and leave ISIL an issue for the Middle East to resolve internally. Ground combat troops are likely to trigger Iranian backlash for the same reason they might be key to solve – they are able to hold territory. For Iran, occupying ground combat troops are almost certain to appear as another offshoot of Western colonialism. Even if Iran does not respond by escalating to combat or conflict, it has a powerful non-military option: the Straights of Hormuz. An immense amount of Western oil passes through a narrow bottleneck called the Straights of Hormuz. If sufficiently provoked, Iran could easily use its forces to create a chokehold on Western oil and a resultant economic collapse in the West. Oil markets are particularly vulnerable and volatile because prices are mutually interdependent and driven by perception. Iranian closure of the Straights would certainly throw the market into chaos, if not collapsing it wholly. It would also provoke a severe – likely military – response from the U.S., with massive resultant casualties.

The economic collapse argument actually becomes an internal link to global warming. An enormous number of scholars suggest that the only way to prevent global warming from causing global planetary extinction is through drastic economic de-development. The aff could argue that it provokes an economic collapse, and that the economic collapse is good because it prevents the only existential threat to humankind: irreversible climate change^[6].

The final argument deals with nuclear terrorism. Both affirmatives and negatives can argue that the volatility in the Middle East increases the likelihood that terrorists acquire nuclear weapons, and then use them against the United States. Whether intervention solves or causes nuclear terrorism is a question that depends on whether a debater is aff or neg, since there is evidence to tell the story either way.

Framework

Most debaters suck at framework. I say this bluntly because I hope that an honest assessment of current framework debates might gently^[7] push younger debaters towards more effective framework arguments.

In any circuit, framework requires substantial development to win. Debaters must first define the scope of their framework, and then they must explain the relationship between their arguments and their framework. They must also perform impact comparison and explain how their opponent's argument fails to meet their framework. Finally, they must explain why their framework is superior to any framework proffered by their opponent. Each part of this tripartite development takes time from debaters – and if the debater is uncertain that the judge is willing to vote on framework, that time trades off with arguments elsewhere on the flow. Because an effectively deployed framework is an all-or-nothing proposition^[8], debaters may perhaps correctly feel that it is dangerous to put all their eggs in one basket^[9].

The TOC is different in both senses that I noted earlier in the article; quality judging and speed acceptance. These changes facilitate both the development of framework substantively, and increased reliance on framework strategically.

I see several potentially strategic frameworks that add subtlety and depth to the trite and simplistic refrain "lives outweigh money"^[10]. First, I think debaters can read philosophical arguments that suggest "best interest" means "living up to moral obligations"^[11], and then suggest that the U.S. has a moral obligation to intervene (or to avoid intervention) in the Levant. There are various moral epistemologies^[12] such as^[13] act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, various iterations of deontology^[14], contractualism, ethics of care, standpoint and identity driven ethics, continental ethics that take oppression as their starting point, and more. Each provides strategic advantages and excludes certain arguments – for example, act utility probably votes aff^[15], rule utility probably votes neg^[16], deontology could vote aff^[17] or neg^[18], contractualism likely votes aff^[19] but could vote neg^[20], and care ethics, identity-driven ethics, and the sparse continental philosophy ethics are heterogeneous to a degree that generalization is impossible^[21].

Kritiks

What is a kritik?

An unfortunate number of debaters in Public Forum readily lambast "kritiks" but have absolutely no idea what a kritik is or isn't^[22]. Most debaters have the vague notion that kritiks involve philosophy and know little more beyond that. Most debaters would also not label their arguments kritiks^[23].

In policy debate, the arguments labeled "kritik" are so impossibly diverse that they defy generalization. There are no universal substantive commonalities between all kritiks; the only procedural similarity is the structure: link, impact, alternative, framework^[24].

The short answer is that the term kritik encompasses a broad, complicated, and even contradictory^[25] group of arguments. There is no coherent line to define and separate "what is a kritik" from "what is not a kritik". Kritiks are not nebulous, magical arguments. They are run-of-the-mill reasons to negate that must be articulated clearly and coherently to win rounds.

I note the above insights as part of an ongoing effort to eliminate the vague sense of mystery and fear that seems to grip Public Forum Debaters whenever the word "kritik" is mentioned. Such misguided mysticism is dangerous, because it may prevent debaters from making commonsense responses to an argument because it is labeled a kritik. I have little doubt that a nonzero number of debaters may feel thrown by idle gossip that their next round opponent is running a kritik.

By noting that a kritik is just another argument that debaters should feel prepared to answer, I hope to help debaters feel less intimidated by an irrational fear of a label.

As suggested above, kritiks come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them use jargon^[26]; others do not. It is impossible to make a general instruction about possible kritikal arguments as a result. The most likely literature bases to apply to this topic deal with criticisms of imperialism^[27], militarism^[28], and the social construction of terrorism^[29]. All three are highly limited because the topic's impact clause restricts impacts to those which focus on "the best interest of the U.S.". All three literature bases traditionally examine the violence caused by the United States in terms of the populations it most heavily impacts; persons abroad.

Teams that read kritiks on this topic are thus at a double disadvantage. First, they face a time tradeoff. Unlike discussions of hegemony, drone strikes, or economic development, criticisms of imperialism and militarism are not familiar ground to most Public Forum Debate judges. As a result, debaters reading kritiks must spend time explaining concepts as well as applying them to arguments. The time spent explaining trades off with time to make substantive argument. Second, they must make – and win – a framework argument that the U.S.'s best interest is established by looking at persons abroad.

The combination of time tradeoffs means that most teams will not read kritiks. Teams that do read kritiks will lose easily quickly to any team confident enough to think through the argument. Hopefully, this section will make debaters more comfortable debating kritiks and more confident answering them.

Conclusion

Champion debaters will identify the different dynamics at the TOC and use that insight to structure their arguments strategically. Debaters who do so effectively will tip the scales in close rounds – and at the TOC, every round is close.

Footnotes and References

---

^[1] Real talk: most debaters do not do impact calculus. Impact calculus finds some measure for comparison – traditionally timeframe, magnitude, and probability – and uses that measure to explain why a debater's impact outweighs their opponent's impact. In that last year or so, I have not heard a single debater in a single round invest time into impact calculus. Certainly, some teams will say "we outweigh" – with nothing else – or will say "number X is bigger than number Y", without any discussion of the interaction(s) between those numbers like when they happen, what might change them, and if the numbers are interdependent or independent of each other.

^[2] In an effort to reduce unpredictability for debaters, most judges attempt to avoid "intervening" in the debate. Judge intervention occurs when a judge injects their personal beliefs into a round. For example, if a liberal judge refused to entertain the argument that global warming is a myth (or a conservative judge refused to vote that global warming is a fact), the judge intervenes in the round in a way that the debaters cannot know in advance. This is unfair because it pits the debaters against the unknown, unspoken presuppositions of any given judge in addition to pitting them against their opponents. Judges with more debate experience recognize the unfairness involved in intervening, and attempt to minimize the effect their beliefs have on the debate.

^[3] The actual number of casualties varies depending on the location and strength of the detonating device, of course.

^[4] The story on fallout actually goes both directions – some evidence suggests fallout would throw a dust layer into the sky, resulting in localized environmental cooling. Other evidence suggests longer term heating impacts from eroding the ozone layer and altering other gas interactions in the stratosphere.

^[5] http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.600424

^[6] Almost by definition, global warming outweighs any economic impact because the latter is reversible while the former is permanent and existential. It is always possible to rebuild the economy. It is not possible to un-extinct humankind.

^[7] Not gently. Try harder. Watch framework lectures and listen to your coaches.

^[8] For a simple example, a lives first framework should make money impacts completely irrelevant unless the opponent can demonstrate that money affects the number of lives saved or lost.

^[9] In general, it is dangerous to put all eggs in any given argument basket. There are two solutions; increase word economy such that less time is required to wholly develop or stop reading framework entirely. The common debate trend to half-read and to half-develop framework is the worst of both worlds, because it wastes time with no (or incidental at most) benefit to debaters.

^[10] Debaters need to stop pretending money and life are unrelated; debaters also need to stop pretending that quality of life is an irrelevant consideration.

^[11] The term "best" is certainly amorphous enough to encompass this type of interpretation. Debaters can successfully suggest that the purpose of moral systems is to determine what actions are best, and thus judges must determine a moral system to evaluate what is "best" in the first place. Absent a method for determining "best", the judge cannot affirm or negate since they have no way to way to evaluate the resolution. All decisions implicitly rely on a moral system as justification (for example, the traditional cannon of Public Forum impacts implicitly rely on the moral philosophy Act Utilitarianism for justification). Debaters can identify the implicit assumption of a moral system for judgment in any decision, and then can argue for a particular moral system that favors their side. Debaters with LD experience will be especially suited to take advantage of this approach.

^[12] Epistemology deals with knowledge production and methods of knowing. Here, "moral epistemology" means "method of determining what the scope and nature of moral conduct".

^[13] Each of the following has a decent summary explaining their nature and application on the first or second page of Google. Consult your LDers, coach, or the interwebs further explanation.

^[14] Deontology considers actions correct or incorrect based on their conformity with predefined, universal moral rules. Philosophers disagree about which universal rules exist, if any. This disagreement may prove important in a debate where the affirmative argues that the U.S. has a duty to keep its promises

^[15] Preventing deaths from ISIL likely maximizes happiness in that instance.

^[16] Adhering to non-intervention principles likely maximizes happiness to a greater degree than a world which embraces unilateral violent intervention.

^[17] Debaters could identify a universal maxim that suggests capable actors must always take every feasible action to prevent and end human rights atrocities as quickly as possible.

^[18] Debaters could suggest that states have a moral obligation to respect the sovereignty of other states and then suggest that the aff's intervention violates state sovereignty because neither Assad nor Masum (Iraq's current president) have requested ground combat troops.

^[19] Contractualism deals with keeping agreements made by states. Debaters could point to various international agreements signed by the U.S. which require it to take steps to intervene against human rights violations and genocides.

^[20] Negatives who successfully construe the international intervention obligation as a collective obligation through multilateral institutions – rather than a unilateral obligation by single states – flip the debate on the affirmative and warrant a negative vote.

^[21] For example, feminist ethics, critical race theory ethics, intersectional ethics, and postcolonial ethics likely all look different.

^[22] I find this an odd paradox. I am not sure how it is possible to know something is bad without actually knowing what that something is.

^[23] They would be wrong to do so for two reasons. First, all arguments rely on philosophy in some degree (whether debaters rely on philosophy that deals with knowledge production – "studies outweigh anecdotes" is an epistemological claim about knowledge prioritization that presumes the conceptual coherence of studies as applied to a situation – or moral judgments – "lives come before money" relies on presumptions about life's value and the value in attempting to minimize suffering – debaters regularly use philosophy even if they do not know it). Second, every debate argument could easily be framed in the format a kritik. See the next footnote.

^[24] Public Forum Debaters can readily fit their most common arguments into this format. Take a standard backlash argument: link (U.S. intervention causes backlash), impact (U.S. intervention causes revenge killings), alternative (the U.A.E. and Iran should take the lead in fighting ISIL), and framework (U.S. should be concerned about the lives of its citizens first). Finally, debaters could easily title their argument "backlash kritik". Tada! You have been reading kritiks all along! In fact, the "backlash kritik" I just outlined actually resembles the core formulation of many imperialism kritiks in policy debate.

^[25] Debaters may face kritikal arguments from both conservative and leftist schools of thought. A policy or Lincoln-Douglas debater may easily hear a Marxist criticism one round and a libertarian kritik the next round.

^[26] The only reason debaters fear kritik jargon like "ontology", "epistemology", and "performativity" is unfamiliarity. Debaters regularly use jargon from several literatures that would throw an average layperson as much as kritik jargon: "dollar hegemony", "offshore balancing", and "glyphosate" (ugh GMOs topic). If debaters read literature that used the first three terms as often as they read literature using the latter three, they would not fear either set.

^[27] The argument's core suggests that the U.S. should not retain a privileged position to intervene in the affairs of other nations. The impact stories may flow from the social-symbolic racism embedded in presuming American Exceptionalism, the gratuitous violence that has resulted from the U.S. acting on such a presumption, both, or neither.

^[28] The argument's core suggests that violence is an ineffective and unethical tool for transnational social engineering. It examines the failures of violence and violent interventions to produce higher levels of human welfare.

^[29] This argument's core suggests that an implicit, unethical value system structures violence deemed "terrorism" and violence deemed acceptable. The United States has a still-continuing history of killing civilians, targeting civilian infrastructure, torturing dissidents, violating human rights domestically and abroad, and suppressing democracy domestically and abroad. State sanctioned racism – in the form of Jim Crow laws – had full force until 50 years ago, and continues to have a recognizable social effect to this day. By any coherent measure of "terrorism", the United States meets the definition in far greater numbers than any other group or groups in the world. Yet the term "terrorism" is predominantly associated with Middle Easterners (who are then incorrectly conflated with Muslims). Selective application of the term "terrorism" merely serves to excuse violence that falls out of its scope. Political violence by the foreigners is "terrorism" – political violence by the U.S. is "collateral damage". The categorical distinction is conceptually incoherent, but has the social disadvantage of sanitizing certain forms of violence. Abroad, thirteen dead civilians is an unremarkable consequence of routine drone strikes. Domestically, thirteen dead civilians is Columbine. The outrage differential between the two is partially (though not wholly) a result of the categorization of violence.