Debate+Format

Ross Smith, Wake Forest University 1985 Debater's Research Guide - //Clarifying Water Policy// || The argument is developed in three stages. First is a consideration of two types of debate theory: that currently in vogue and a theory of formats. Second is an elaboration of the elements comprising a theory of debate formats. The article concludes with speculation on the usefulness of a theory of formats, contemplating a full-blown 'debate events" paradigm (debate-world-view).
 * Format Theory
 * Unlike most "debate theory" articles, this one will neither attempt to explicate the latest neologism, nor will it advocate a set of standards for judging debates. Instead, I will suggest a different wav of thinking theoretically about debate. The thrust of the argument is that devoting some extra thought to debate formats instead of debate arguments may be helpful for all debate scholars--academics, coaches, and debaters.

There is more than one respect in which theories may differ, hence there can be more than two types of debate theory. What divides current from a theory of formats is the level of abstraction at which the two operate. Current theory abstracts from the particular round, but not from the given format. Format is held constant, whether fixed as a traditional policy format (rebuttals of half the length of constructives, negative INC/INR time-block, cross-examination between constructives, "policy" resolution), or as. value debate" (traditional format with the exception of resolution wording, or Lincoln Douglas format) . Given the format, theorists bicker about where presumption lies, whether conditional arguments are allowed, and other Such issues. A theory of formats would abstract from the particular round and from the particular format. Theorists would bicker over such issues as the optimum constructive/rebuttal speech time ratio. Format would be treated as a variable in a theory of formats, whereas it is held constant in current theorizing.
 * Two Types of Debate Theory**

The distinction in terms of level of abstraction creates a difference in how theory is developed. A theory that does not abstract from format can be argued in a debate round. Debaters can and do argue that the judge should employ a particular debate theory when evaluating the round. Current debate theory is often used by debaters as a Strategic weapon. It is widely conceded that in many instances current theory is led by practice. The theory of counterplan competitiveness, in particular, seems to be a practice-led development. Format is not debated in rounds, nor can it be. Debates occur after the decision on their format is reached. Some judges state in their judging philosophy that they are open to any arguments except arguments that the format be changed; most don't bother. Practice may precede theory in a theory of formats, but in a different wav. By experimenting with formats we might test our theories concerning the relationship between format variables and debate practices, but format theory would not be debated in rounds (unless, of course, the resolution concerned formats).

It should not be concluded that developments at one level of theory have no implications for the other level. The argument for topical counterplans can be broadened into an argument for abandoning resolutions in favor of problem areas. Just as current theory describes what theory arguments enter into debates conducted under the current format, future theory might describe or predict the focus of in-round theory argument under different formats. Some theory questions may prove to be common to all formats (the optimal degree of judge intervention suggests itself). Further speculation on the mutual development of the two types of debate theory will be offered later. Let it simply be noted that the two are not "competitive"-- one can argue that given a particular format, this or that way of arguing is better suited to the format.

There are some other differences between the two types of theory, and some similarities. Their goals are similar: to improve the quality of debating and to increase our understanding of debating. In the final section I will argue that current theory may have less to offer at the margin from further refinement, especially since format theory is so underdeveloped. The essential difference however is in the level of abstraction.

A view of the elements of format theory can be discovered by observing what might be characterized as the tinkering with formats in the vast few (?) years. Cross-examination, prep-time, "value" resolutions, evidence citation rules, and other timid changes illustrate several of the format variables that might be changed. Lincoln-Douglas debate is probably the most dramatic format change we have witnessed. The Lincoln-Douglas format differs in terms of the number of speakers on a side, the order and time of speeches, and the type of resolution. Yet it is not evident in the literature that any of our format changes have stimulated a //systematic// search for further changes. We now have theorists discussing such issues as where presumption lies in a value debate. Parallel theories spring up within formats as debaters and coaches attempt to apply current theory to the new formats.
 * Elements of Format Theory**

A systematic, methodical investigation of format theory would, like current theory, have both a normative and a positive element. The normative element would probably not change; a set of Preferred pedagogical and intellectual outcomes would he listed, including such items as fairness, development of analytical, research and speaking skills, and the advancement of knowledge. The positive element is what relates the set of variables to the outcomes. The key to doing good format theory would be the ability to specify which variables advance which goals, and how the variables interact. I cannot, nor do I have the space or intent to, outline a complete format theory here. What I will do is discuss some format variables, many of which have been given too little attention.


 * Time limit variables**. Time limits can be Short or long, fixed or not fixed, of differing ratios, or nonexistent. Total length of a debate should probably be adjusted to subject matter. Some questions are more complex, more interesting, or more important than others. We use fixed time limits now, but could simply allow teams to use a total of thirty minutes, distributed in any fashion among their speeches. For example, the University of Kentucky Round Robin lets the teams decide how much of a fixed amount of time they wish to use for either cross-examination or preptime. A constructive: rebuttal ratio of 2:1 is now most common. Might a ratio of 1:2 reverse the blow-up/cheap-shot trend in favor of detailed extension on a more limited set of issues? And lest you think time limits are indispensable, consider a format that regulates the number of arguments instead of the amount of time in which arguments may be made.


 * Speech order and number**. These are self explanatory. One might question the current convention of reversing the rebuttal speech order. Does the negative really enjoy presumption, and does that really justify the affirmative's sneaking last? The junk-up, blow-up, and fill-up strategy of the negative time block might best be left in the dustbin of debate history in favor of letting the 1AR directly follow the 2NC, especially if the negative does already enjoy presumption. And if this gives too much advantage to the 2NR as the final speaker, why not add a short 3AR? Before rejecting these changes as cumbersome, one should also consider adjusting speaking time variables in combination with order and number variables. We might be willing to shorten the 1AC in order to get time for that 3AR.


 * Content rules.** Is evidence allowed? May teams read as many voices of evidence as they want to? Instead of requiring that judges not read evidence after a round (and worse still, that teams may not look at their opponent's evidence) we might say teams may only read thirty cards per round. The quality of both the evidence read and the explanation of it' should rise given the strategic importance of evidence. More time would be available for longer cards, analytic argument, and slower reading. However, crafty negatives might "save" all of their allotment for one disadvantage in 2NC, hoping the affirmative will have significantly depleted their supply by that time. The incentives to "sandbag" would be great.


 * Preparation rules.** How far in advance is the topic announced? Is there preparation time during the debate? Before the debate but after the round is posted? What is the extent of notice? There may be room for significant innovation in this last area. The resolution serves some notice, but a case list may provide more notice. At most workshops, teams provide a case outline prior to the beginning of the tournament.


 * Number of opponents**. The number of opponents one faces is not necessarily the number of members on a team. Imagine the following: there is a problem area, how to best reduce highway deaths, and three teams are debating in the same round. The second team must advocate a policy that is both distinct from and competitive with the first team's policy. The third team must satisfy the same two requirements in relation to the policies of each of the first two teams. More than two policies could thus be considered without necessarily sacrificing advocacy values or depth of discussion.


 * Subject matter**. Policy is not the only thing that can he debated, nor are values. Nor are resolutions the only means of regulating subject matter. Here, then, are two axes, the type of subject matter and the means of regulating it. Some would favor an outright ban on certain arguments, in addition to a specification of arguments. Regulations can thus be negative or positive. Here we have had some tinkering, although most "value" resolutions are arguably policy resolutions in disguise. What we have not had are resolutions concerning questions of history, art or religion. How about a true value topic like, "Resolved: that utilitarianism is more preferable than Rawlsian distributive justice.?" A problem area without a resolution would eliminate affirmative cases that conform to the action described by a resolution yet are outside the subject area.


 * Judging variables**. These include the type of critic (lay in relation to subject matter but not to debate practice, specialist in subject matter but lay in relation to debate, "common man," student or graduate) the number of critics per round, the extent of judge interaction (may they ask questions, make comments, look at evidence, or take notes?), and other rules for how they judge (must they consider topicality a voting issue, might they be //required// to take their own knowledge into count?). The Wake Forest and Dartmouth workshops, and the Dartmouth College Debate Tournament have experimented with student panel members in elimination rounds. "Turning the tables" in this way may make debaters more sympathetic with the predicaments of judges and may reduce the snobbishness of elimination round debaters.


 * Feedback variables**. These include both what the judge does and how it is done. Feedback may be oral, written, or gestural. It may be immediate, ongoing, or delayed.


 * Competitive measures**. We now give a win or 10 s w3-th speaker points. Might we include ties? Probably not, as the best debates are also those most likely to be adjudged a tie, penalizing the participating teams in relation to those who had an easier time of it. Instead, we could use only points, or a "must" system. In a must system, the judge must assign an odd number of points to the two teams. So, in a five-point must system, the affirmative/negative split could be 5-0, 4-1, 3-2, 2-3, 1-4, or 5-0.

The above categories are hardly exhaustive, elegant, or fully elaborated. The astute reader will have noticed that I omitted the mode of communication variable, not considering written vs. oral debate. What is most important at this point is to realize that there are a huge number of means at our disposal to create multiple debate formats serving multiple ends.

Finally, it should be noted that one could abstract still further to the tournament or season level. One tournament might employ more than one format. Different tournaments could feature different formats. I submit that it is highly unlikely that we can best meet our goals by employing only one format, even if that format is found to be significantly more productive than those we now have. Fundamental to an understanding of format theory is the notion that different formats promote (and demote) different goals. Just as current theory recognizes that there are trade-offs inherent in any attempt to meet competing goals (e.g., clarity trades off with quantity of information) within a format, there are trade-offs associated with the choice of one format over another. Diversification of formats can maximize the sum of benefit, however. For example, we may not be willing to have all debates judged by lay judges, but we may consider the significant gain in audience adaptation skills from including two lay judged rounds per tournament worth the marginal loss of sophistication of argument, given that sophistication would remain in the majority of rounds. Just as the consumer with $100 to spend does not search for the perfect $100 item, but searches for the best mix of items costing a total of $100, we should direct our efforts at discovering and using the formats available for our use in our limited time available for debating.

How we might maximize our satisfaction of competing goals has just been discussed. I would argue further that a theory of formats is more useful in this respect than is current theory. First, sermonizing to fellow 3udges about how they should judge seems to have had little persuasive effect. Judges have a personal ego investment in how they judge. None of us, however, is responsible for the existing rigidity of formats. Not even David Zarefsky created the idea of resolution-guided debates in a 10-5 or 8-4 structure. Second, current theory is used more as a strategic tool by debaters than as a means of advancing lofty ideals. What intelligent format changes do is harness the competitive drive, creating situations in which it is strategically advantageous to do "better" debating. Third, current theory, being so much esoterica to the neophyte discourages potential participants. With a wider variety of formats, there would be more ways to match opportunities with interests, making debate in general attractive to more students.
 * The Usefulness of Format Theory**

Beyond the immediate "better debating' goals, a well developed theory of formats should also aid communication and argumentation scholarship as practiced by academics. This effect would be felt in two ways. First, a large body of empirical data would be generated by a more diverse set of debate events. Debate as a laboratory for argument would become a more meaningful concept. Second, current debate theory might he improved. Perhaps elements of theory that are central to all debating would be separated from what are mere artifacts of a particular format. It is here that the notion of a debate events paradigm becomes important. Competitive debate is a game, but not just any game. An understanding of the generation of the set of rules that comprises all games that can be called debate games would also be an understanding of what debate is (Here the analogy is to set-theoretical ma7@-hematics. An understanding of how the set of real numbers is generated is an understanding of what they are.).

Finally, a sophisticated understanding of and extensive formats may give a real impact on can't join it). are in desperate we have to offer experience with multiple us the opportunity to have the real world (even if we Real world political debates need of better formats. All now is something that is obviously not acceptable in light of the strategic concerns of political candidates. If we truly understood the theory of how format relates to strategy, we might be able to devise formats that are both acceptable to candidates and more useful to voters.

At this point you may be thinking you are not in a position to change the format of debates, something as entrenched as the military industrial complex. I doubt it, though. Debaters can effectively lobby their coaches and institute teachers for some experimental rounds. Coaches can include some experimental rounds in tournaments. At least you can discuss your favorite format innovation with others. Once you have done so, you might be surprised how ride for change our community is. our main problem may be that we don't know enough about format theory to be confident of any change, especially when there are so many possible ways to change. We could certainly afford to have our full-time debate theorists spending more of their time on formats and less on judging philosophies (the $100 to spend analogy again). But take comfort. I will spend my time on formats and know others who will. And you can at least play with formats in practice rounds. You can devise formats that fit your practice needs. And you will have a lot more fun. ||