Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Will Repko on Topic Style and Size
A Five Tub Topic
I. Introduction
This partially stems from a post by Ross Smith on the new CEDATOPIC blog.
(http://cedatopic.blogspot.com/ -- his post is titled "Narrow plus affirmative "bias" = best").
This also stems from my experiences on the Committee.
It is intended to spark two meta-discussions:
What is the Role of the Committee ?....
and:
What should final product look like for 2006-7 ?...
II. Summary
The cliff-note version is:
1. For the foreseeable future, the Committee should strive to create topics that -- when reasonably engaged -- will necessitate teams bring no more than (roughly) 5 tubs to a season-ending tournament.
2. I believe the Committee should abide by a Charter that reads something like this:
Debate should be an important and intense component of an undergraduate education -- but should strive not to be all-consuming. Topic wording should reflect this balance.
3. Committee Members should not view their responsibilities as static or even consistent between topics, but instead should consider their responsibilities contextually.
Four contemporary "contexts" that I'd like to call (more) attention to are:
a) The underlying purpose of a legal-only ballot was to "court" students to learn about contemporary legal issues.
Unless the topic is rather narrow, I fear many negatives will view the approach of "engaging my opponent's specific legal Aff" as overwhelming. The topic probably needs to be perceived as manageable, or else the very purpose of forced rotation will be lost.
b) Airlines and the 2 bag rule.
This is a relatively new development that makes broader topics even more difficult to manage.
c) We exist in an era of Neg (judging) bias -- particularly in debates where both teams are relatively evenly-matched.
Topic construction should -- for the time being -- reflect that bias.
d) The emergence of the Kritik places (automatically huge) research burdens on programs.
Topic Construction should pragmatically allot time for reacting to the large research burdens brought on by this genre of argument.
III. Warrants
A) How things have changed
It is not 1991.
Color Me Badd is not rocking the airwaves.
None of us are wearing Bugle Boy Jeans....hopefully.
Near as I can tell, the 1991 "blueprint" for a debate topic looked something like this:
Force the Aff to do something "mean". It gives the neg good general ground.
Have an elegant wording, so as to not box-out interesting and valuable corners of the topic.
I sense this blueprint worked in 1991 b/c of some of the specific contexts of that era. Judges were tougher on neg generics. Also, in a largely pre-K era, Affs were reluctant to simply ignore the topic.
This 1991 blueprint seems to have been summoned when writing the "pressure China" topic. Here's why I believe this blueprint has lost much of its value:
1. the 1AC no longer serves as the centerpiece of discussion -- the 1NC does.
Debates need not be about Chinese Toys or Trans-Racial Adoptions. "No specific link" is usually a losing argument for an Aff. Accordingly, these so-called "interesting" areas that "we should not box-out" are often not engaged in a terribly meaningful way. Negs do not "fear" their lack of a specific hit against a small aff to the same degree that they did in 1991 -- they simply don’t have to. If you believe that much of the education occurs both before the tourney begins (research phase) or after the 1AC (refutation phase), then it’s fair to say that the community is not learning that much from including these small/new Affs.
2. If Affs do not like the “mean” direction of the topic -- an increasingly large percentage of teams simply won’t defend it.
Many won’t control Indian Country. Many won’t pressure China. They just won't.
They assuredly take on some baggage by not doing so -- but this baggage does not manifest itself by having a DEEP debate about the topic. It takes place as a T or theory argument. I'd posit that such debates must exist conceptually, but -- in practice -- are not *that* meaningful (in terms of knowledge outside the activity).
The idea of "forcing the Aff to be mean" WAS ONCE a useful counter-weight to flexible Aff choice. Now, it often means that Affs will run as fast as they can AWAY from the (ostenably) central question. They often run so far that they defend the antithesis of it.
This is not a slap at a particular "kind" of debate. Far from it. It is pragmatic acknowledgement that said debate is out there, and that the reasoning that undergirds that defense of broad topics pretends that it is not.
Better put -- Kritik debate exists, people. And -- because it does -- Negs don’t do as many specific hits. Affs don’t need to abide by the topic. And, broad topics are not meaningfully explored.
Meaningful exploration of the Aff USED to be a requirement. NOW, it is an option.
In 2006-7, a limited topic will cause MORE teams to OPT for meaningful exploration of legal issues.
b) Why a 5 tub topic ?...
1. Airlines.
This sounds silly at first -- but actually is becoming an increasingly serious issue that complicates most every debate program (as nearly all programs fly at least *once* a season).
We just finished a topic that -- when fully engaged -- was (conservatively) a 10+ tub topic.
Bracketing the pedagogical wisdom of such wordings, the last two (broad) topics have made it almost impossible to travel with all your materials.
Our community spends considerable energy discussing whether "there is a place" for schools that want to engage in certain argument practices. While it is not perfect, the Committee has and does try to "build" that place into the topic for critical and policy teams alike.
I’d contend that "a place" needs to be preserved for teams that wish to engage the topic. This is not because it is the "Correct" or "Only" way to debate. It is because it's a reasonable "way" to debate -- one that deserves "a place". Not everyone needs to approach debate this way, but the Committee should respect those that opt to.
If the Committee puts out a topic so large that "engagers" cannot bring all of their damn materials to the tourney, then the Committee is not really preserving that "place".
As an aside -- it wouldn’t be the end of the world if:
We could check a bag
Debaters weren’t ALWAYS the passengers that irritated every other person on the plane by carrying-on too much crap.
2. Balanced Lives & the "Effort gap"
While I (or MSU more generally) may have a reputation more endorsing insane work habits, I actually believe the following:
"Debate should be an important and intense component of an undergraduate education -- but should not strive to be all-consuming. Topic wording should reflect this balance"
Broad topics tilt debaters towards both (bad) extremes.
Huge topics create an unenviable forced choice -- either:
engage it all. Creating huge time trade-offs educationally, socially, etc.
OR:
go mondo-generic. For many, this decision is reached b/c the first option is just so damn daunting. One can meet with reasonable success if they "go generic", all while avoiding the (many) drawbacks having to work endlessly. To me, this is perfectly logical.
I believe broad topics have helped fuel a widening "effort gap". The consequences of this "divide" are getting serious. Let me explain.
Those in the community that are in the "engage it all" camp get a little bitter. Maybe they shouldn't -- but they do. Ideology sharpens.
Those in the community that are (for whatever reason) in the mondo-generic camp also get a little bitter. Some of it is reactive -- they do not appreciate some of the flack or decisions that come their way. A different ideology sharpens.
Frankly, I think this ideological split could cause new debate organizations to emerge. I believe it to be that serious.
While I suspect some sort of effort gap will always be inevitable, I also feel that more narrow topics are a starting point for bridging this divide.
Both camps can see the middle ground again. One camp will be able to go see a movie every now & again. The other would not view parts of the community as hoisting an unfair or unmanageable research burden upon them.
As an aside -- it wouldn’t be the end of the world if:
Students and Coaches had a little more time on their hands.
They could invest it in all sorts of good things.
Kritiks were able to be a little more specifically tailored to the Aff at hand.
It's been a little while since someone really rolled Texas EG-style and had a specific link to Korea, or Cuba, etc. I'll contend that made Kirk-Jarius not just *more mainstream* K debaters, but also *better* K debaters. Part of the reason they were able to do this was because the sanctions topic was predictable and narrow.
3. Because the Committee finally bit the bullet – and forced legal rotation.
A legal-only ballot was not an uncontroversial step.
Many in the community find the step irritating or a recipe for boredom. Others just wish it didn’t hit during their senior year.
Unless this topic is quite narrow, I believe the benefits of forced rotation will be lost.
If the Committee is going to pragmatic and wise enough to say the following:
“Hey, we’ll never select anything other than IR topics unless we have legal-only ballots”
Then the Committee should not be afraid to say:
“Hey, unless the topic is fairly narrow, we won’t (on balance) learn anywhere near as much about the law”
Both statements are pragmatic and reasonable uses of bio-power in my opinion. The latter flows from the former.
4. Because the quality of Neg case hits is down, and honing that specific skill set is a particularly important part of a legal education.
Let me start with a disclaimer – I am firmly not in the camp that current debaters are worse than a prior era.
On balance, I am blown away at what they know and how they improve. There are many reasons I think this – though none are important to this paper. I just wanted to be clear that this is not one of those “golden era” nostalgia comments.
But, one skill that has dropped off in college debate (for sure) over the course of the last 10 years is the quality and depth of specific case hits.
For better or worse, this has a lot to do with high school and college debate softening to off-case generics. As stated earlier, the expectations for specific research are just different.
When I first entered college debate, a “complete” neg file included second and third lines of attack. More of the scouting process entailed finding out what :
“their answers to our answers to their answers to…are”
(if that makes any sense)
It is that specific kind of intense depth and anticipation that makes for an impressive law review article or well prepared case. Muddling through fine distinctions of this sort is part of the law.
In fairness, I do see deep, deep case hits every now and again. But, by and large, I see them from coaches like a Ryan Galloway or David Heidt – and less from current debaters or even active first year graduate assistants. I think has something to do with expectations that were placed on Ryan or David when they were students.
The Committee’s decisions create pedagogical norms. They did when Galloway was debating. They do today.
On this topic in particular, the Committee should foster a pedagogical norm that “courts” discussion about a series of important legal cases.
The best way to accomplish this is to endorse list-oriented topics. It will “hook” our youngsters on an important skill set.
IV. Closing Thoughts:
1. Elegant topic wordings from the early 90's may have a special place in our hearts, but if re-debated today would (honestly) be twice as large. The Committee should be specifically be hesitant extrapolate the positive experiences of the pre-merger Privacy Topic to a modern era where the Kritik is pervasive, the judge pool is different, and there is a tempting disincentive to “go-specific”.
2. I do not think the “overturn” problem (cited by Stefan and others) is a deal-breaker.
Call upon ex-debaters that are experts in the legal field, and select the appropriate verb for each of the (many) ideas that have already been put on the table as possible cases for a list topic. Generic ground should not come from the verb anyway – it should come from the politics of the decision (liberal or conservative). It’s the difference between encouraging ticky-tack Branson cplans (universal “overturn” in the stem) and encouraging solid generic disads based on the politics of the new conservative court.
3. Ask yourself if “areas” served as a remotely decent limit on Indians, China, or Energy.
4. While this paper seems to strongly preach limits, I do think an appropriate list would have more than 5 cases. I like 8-11 – maybe even more – Aff-leaning list items. Treaties got tough on the Aff at the end. The Community seems to want a uniform direction (politically). Having them all be liberal rulings seems fine to me.
Take it easy,
Will
I. Introduction
This partially stems from a post by Ross Smith on the new CEDATOPIC blog.
(http://cedatopic.blogspot.com/ -- his post is titled "Narrow plus affirmative "bias" = best").
This also stems from my experiences on the Committee.
It is intended to spark two meta-discussions:
What is the Role of the Committee ?....
and:
What should final product look like for 2006-7 ?...
II. Summary
The cliff-note version is:
1. For the foreseeable future, the Committee should strive to create topics that -- when reasonably engaged -- will necessitate teams bring no more than (roughly) 5 tubs to a season-ending tournament.
2. I believe the Committee should abide by a Charter that reads something like this:
Debate should be an important and intense component of an undergraduate education -- but should strive not to be all-consuming. Topic wording should reflect this balance.
3. Committee Members should not view their responsibilities as static or even consistent between topics, but instead should consider their responsibilities contextually.
Four contemporary "contexts" that I'd like to call (more) attention to are:
a) The underlying purpose of a legal-only ballot was to "court" students to learn about contemporary legal issues.
Unless the topic is rather narrow, I fear many negatives will view the approach of "engaging my opponent's specific legal Aff" as overwhelming. The topic probably needs to be perceived as manageable, or else the very purpose of forced rotation will be lost.
b) Airlines and the 2 bag rule.
This is a relatively new development that makes broader topics even more difficult to manage.
c) We exist in an era of Neg (judging) bias -- particularly in debates where both teams are relatively evenly-matched.
Topic construction should -- for the time being -- reflect that bias.
d) The emergence of the Kritik places (automatically huge) research burdens on programs.
Topic Construction should pragmatically allot time for reacting to the large research burdens brought on by this genre of argument.
III. Warrants
A) How things have changed
It is not 1991.
Color Me Badd is not rocking the airwaves.
None of us are wearing Bugle Boy Jeans....hopefully.
Near as I can tell, the 1991 "blueprint" for a debate topic looked something like this:
Force the Aff to do something "mean". It gives the neg good general ground.
Have an elegant wording, so as to not box-out interesting and valuable corners of the topic.
I sense this blueprint worked in 1991 b/c of some of the specific contexts of that era. Judges were tougher on neg generics. Also, in a largely pre-K era, Affs were reluctant to simply ignore the topic.
This 1991 blueprint seems to have been summoned when writing the "pressure China" topic. Here's why I believe this blueprint has lost much of its value:
1. the 1AC no longer serves as the centerpiece of discussion -- the 1NC does.
Debates need not be about Chinese Toys or Trans-Racial Adoptions. "No specific link" is usually a losing argument for an Aff. Accordingly, these so-called "interesting" areas that "we should not box-out" are often not engaged in a terribly meaningful way. Negs do not "fear" their lack of a specific hit against a small aff to the same degree that they did in 1991 -- they simply don’t have to. If you believe that much of the education occurs both before the tourney begins (research phase) or after the 1AC (refutation phase), then it’s fair to say that the community is not learning that much from including these small/new Affs.
2. If Affs do not like the “mean” direction of the topic -- an increasingly large percentage of teams simply won’t defend it.
Many won’t control Indian Country. Many won’t pressure China. They just won't.
They assuredly take on some baggage by not doing so -- but this baggage does not manifest itself by having a DEEP debate about the topic. It takes place as a T or theory argument. I'd posit that such debates must exist conceptually, but -- in practice -- are not *that* meaningful (in terms of knowledge outside the activity).
The idea of "forcing the Aff to be mean" WAS ONCE a useful counter-weight to flexible Aff choice. Now, it often means that Affs will run as fast as they can AWAY from the (ostenably) central question. They often run so far that they defend the antithesis of it.
This is not a slap at a particular "kind" of debate. Far from it. It is pragmatic acknowledgement that said debate is out there, and that the reasoning that undergirds that defense of broad topics pretends that it is not.
Better put -- Kritik debate exists, people. And -- because it does -- Negs don’t do as many specific hits. Affs don’t need to abide by the topic. And, broad topics are not meaningfully explored.
Meaningful exploration of the Aff USED to be a requirement. NOW, it is an option.
In 2006-7, a limited topic will cause MORE teams to OPT for meaningful exploration of legal issues.
b) Why a 5 tub topic ?...
1. Airlines.
This sounds silly at first -- but actually is becoming an increasingly serious issue that complicates most every debate program (as nearly all programs fly at least *once* a season).
We just finished a topic that -- when fully engaged -- was (conservatively) a 10+ tub topic.
Bracketing the pedagogical wisdom of such wordings, the last two (broad) topics have made it almost impossible to travel with all your materials.
Our community spends considerable energy discussing whether "there is a place" for schools that want to engage in certain argument practices. While it is not perfect, the Committee has and does try to "build" that place into the topic for critical and policy teams alike.
I’d contend that "a place" needs to be preserved for teams that wish to engage the topic. This is not because it is the "Correct" or "Only" way to debate. It is because it's a reasonable "way" to debate -- one that deserves "a place". Not everyone needs to approach debate this way, but the Committee should respect those that opt to.
If the Committee puts out a topic so large that "engagers" cannot bring all of their damn materials to the tourney, then the Committee is not really preserving that "place".
As an aside -- it wouldn’t be the end of the world if:
We could check a bag
Debaters weren’t ALWAYS the passengers that irritated every other person on the plane by carrying-on too much crap.
2. Balanced Lives & the "Effort gap"
While I (or MSU more generally) may have a reputation more endorsing insane work habits, I actually believe the following:
"Debate should be an important and intense component of an undergraduate education -- but should not strive to be all-consuming. Topic wording should reflect this balance"
Broad topics tilt debaters towards both (bad) extremes.
Huge topics create an unenviable forced choice -- either:
engage it all. Creating huge time trade-offs educationally, socially, etc.
OR:
go mondo-generic. For many, this decision is reached b/c the first option is just so damn daunting. One can meet with reasonable success if they "go generic", all while avoiding the (many) drawbacks having to work endlessly. To me, this is perfectly logical.
I believe broad topics have helped fuel a widening "effort gap". The consequences of this "divide" are getting serious. Let me explain.
Those in the community that are in the "engage it all" camp get a little bitter. Maybe they shouldn't -- but they do. Ideology sharpens.
Those in the community that are (for whatever reason) in the mondo-generic camp also get a little bitter. Some of it is reactive -- they do not appreciate some of the flack or decisions that come their way. A different ideology sharpens.
Frankly, I think this ideological split could cause new debate organizations to emerge. I believe it to be that serious.
While I suspect some sort of effort gap will always be inevitable, I also feel that more narrow topics are a starting point for bridging this divide.
Both camps can see the middle ground again. One camp will be able to go see a movie every now & again. The other would not view parts of the community as hoisting an unfair or unmanageable research burden upon them.
As an aside -- it wouldn’t be the end of the world if:
Students and Coaches had a little more time on their hands.
They could invest it in all sorts of good things.
Kritiks were able to be a little more specifically tailored to the Aff at hand.
It's been a little while since someone really rolled Texas EG-style and had a specific link to Korea, or Cuba, etc. I'll contend that made Kirk-Jarius not just *more mainstream* K debaters, but also *better* K debaters. Part of the reason they were able to do this was because the sanctions topic was predictable and narrow.
3. Because the Committee finally bit the bullet – and forced legal rotation.
A legal-only ballot was not an uncontroversial step.
Many in the community find the step irritating or a recipe for boredom. Others just wish it didn’t hit during their senior year.
Unless this topic is quite narrow, I believe the benefits of forced rotation will be lost.
If the Committee is going to pragmatic and wise enough to say the following:
“Hey, we’ll never select anything other than IR topics unless we have legal-only ballots”
Then the Committee should not be afraid to say:
“Hey, unless the topic is fairly narrow, we won’t (on balance) learn anywhere near as much about the law”
Both statements are pragmatic and reasonable uses of bio-power in my opinion. The latter flows from the former.
4. Because the quality of Neg case hits is down, and honing that specific skill set is a particularly important part of a legal education.
Let me start with a disclaimer – I am firmly not in the camp that current debaters are worse than a prior era.
On balance, I am blown away at what they know and how they improve. There are many reasons I think this – though none are important to this paper. I just wanted to be clear that this is not one of those “golden era” nostalgia comments.
But, one skill that has dropped off in college debate (for sure) over the course of the last 10 years is the quality and depth of specific case hits.
For better or worse, this has a lot to do with high school and college debate softening to off-case generics. As stated earlier, the expectations for specific research are just different.
When I first entered college debate, a “complete” neg file included second and third lines of attack. More of the scouting process entailed finding out what :
“their answers to our answers to their answers to…are”
(if that makes any sense)
It is that specific kind of intense depth and anticipation that makes for an impressive law review article or well prepared case. Muddling through fine distinctions of this sort is part of the law.
In fairness, I do see deep, deep case hits every now and again. But, by and large, I see them from coaches like a Ryan Galloway or David Heidt – and less from current debaters or even active first year graduate assistants. I think has something to do with expectations that were placed on Ryan or David when they were students.
The Committee’s decisions create pedagogical norms. They did when Galloway was debating. They do today.
On this topic in particular, the Committee should foster a pedagogical norm that “courts” discussion about a series of important legal cases.
The best way to accomplish this is to endorse list-oriented topics. It will “hook” our youngsters on an important skill set.
IV. Closing Thoughts:
1. Elegant topic wordings from the early 90's may have a special place in our hearts, but if re-debated today would (honestly) be twice as large. The Committee should be specifically be hesitant extrapolate the positive experiences of the pre-merger Privacy Topic to a modern era where the Kritik is pervasive, the judge pool is different, and there is a tempting disincentive to “go-specific”.
2. I do not think the “overturn” problem (cited by Stefan and others) is a deal-breaker.
Call upon ex-debaters that are experts in the legal field, and select the appropriate verb for each of the (many) ideas that have already been put on the table as possible cases for a list topic. Generic ground should not come from the verb anyway – it should come from the politics of the decision (liberal or conservative). It’s the difference between encouraging ticky-tack Branson cplans (universal “overturn” in the stem) and encouraging solid generic disads based on the politics of the new conservative court.
3. Ask yourself if “areas” served as a remotely decent limit on Indians, China, or Energy.
4. While this paper seems to strongly preach limits, I do think an appropriate list would have more than 5 cases. I like 8-11 – maybe even more – Aff-leaning list items. Treaties got tough on the Aff at the end. The Community seems to want a uniform direction (politically). Having them all be liberal rulings seems fine to me.
Take it easy,
Will
posted by Steve Mancuso at 5/30/2006 07:57:00 PM
¶ 
