Hey folks! Just a heads up. This video is not intended to be fully digested in one sitting. The video is meticulously split into a bunch of little chapters based on what I talk about. You can just skip around, or watch little segments and come back later. If there's anything covered in this analysis that you would like a seperate video dedicated to, just let me know! Also let me know what other rounds you'd like to see an analysis for.
Fantastic analysis. Another round I would be intrigued to hear you break down would be the 2022 NSDA final for Public Forum. There’s a lot of interesting strategy decisions that are made that I would love your perspective on.
Great analysis! I thought your musings on traditional debate were interesting. I am curious though-when you say that neither trad debate nor ultra techy K debate are your favorite "styles", what *is* your favorite style? To me, it seems like most debate falls along one of those two extremes, for better and for worse. I'm also curious when you describe the arbitrary nature of trad rounds-I am a big trad shill so I feel compelled to weigh in when nobody asked me to-I would posit that tech rounds are equally arbitrary, just in a different way. There are physical limits and questions of ability that preclude people from speaking that quickly, resource barriers that prevent people from reading through the mountains of K literature that exist, and stylistic barriers that make tech rounds utterly inscrutable to some people. Moreover, the fast that a lot of tech rounds have equivalently weighted claims (you drop some part of Condo/T/etc therefore you lose) which presumably gets read on both sides means that sometimes decisions just come down to which norm the judge personally preferred on whatever theory shell was extended. Not often, mind you, but it absolutely can happen. Equivalently to the inverse, Trad rounds still can get decided on the flow, and still get evaluated on semi-objective metrics of the truth value of content, which is more than you can say for a lot of nuclear war scenarios in tech rounds. Obviously there are problems with a lot of trad debate, but that emphasis on narrative and strategy is its own kind of skill that I'd argue leads for just as high quality debates as tech rounds just on different metrics.
Hey Will! I just wanted to let you know that I tried answering your question (it's a great question) but after hours of making the timestamps for this video my brain is officially too fried for me to write a good response right now. I'm gonna circle back and answer this tomorrow, lol.
Okay, I'm back. Appreciate your patience, lol. First, let's get into most debate falling in the spectrum of traditional to ultra techy K debate. I don't quite agree with that. *re: "To me, it seems like most debate falls along one of those two extremes, for better and for worse."* I guess I would say the various debate "styles" are the different combinations of answers to a specific set of questions. This would probably be a great topic for a video, but just riffing off the top of my head, those questions would probably be: 1. Does the aff have to defend the topic? 2. Can the negative make arguments that attack the affirmative for reasons not directly related to the topic? 3. Does the aff have to propose a plan (or specific method of implementing the topic)? 4. If not, can the aff propose a plan if they want to? 5. Can a debater win the debate by arguing in-round that something their opponent did was unfair or bad for education? 6. Does that actually have to be true in order for them to win or can they win the argument on something like drops? 7. If someone unsuccessful accuses someone of cheating, should they lose just for that? 8. Are drops concessions? 9. Does a judge use their own discretion to determine if evidence is reliable? 10. Does a debater's identity affect who wins the debate round? 11. Does a debate round have to be intelligible to a lay audience? 12. Is it fair game for a debater to use speed as a tool to win? 13. When a topic is about a policy action, does the negative need to defend the status quo? That's just off the top of my head. I think something like this would make a really great survey to send out to a ton of debaters and judges to get data on what people think and how it correlates to the debate event they do, their region, their level of experience, etc. Anyway, I think there's a lot of sets of answers that degree with each other significantly but are still painted with the same wide brush of "techy" or "progressive". For example, there are debate styles that are very open to spreading and theory, but not kritiks. There are kritikal styles that are performative and not open to spreading. I don't think it works to say these styles exist at different places on the same 1-dimensional line.
*re: "what is your favorite style?"* That's a really tough question to answer. Think about it from the perspective of a different competitive game, like a competitive video game. I'm imagining Tekken, you can imagine whatever. There's the question of what you do in order to be successful in the competition, and the question of what you want a game to reward you for doing. If there's a significant enough difference from what you want the game to be from what it is, you just wouldn't play the game. But with most competitive games, there's a significant number of players who aren't fully satisfied by the game and the current "meta", but it's still a game they like overall (and/or there's no better alternative that scratches the same itch). For more on this, see my video on game design in debate. So, you could be asking what style of debate I think is the most effective. But I don't think that's what you're asking. So I guess I'll answer the question of... what are the things that I most wish were the norms and "meta" of debate? Well, in that scenario, no one would be spreading. Kritiks would be much more rare and framed much more strongly around their solvency than just talking about things that have big impacts. The affirmative would have to directly defend the topic in such a way that they can't handwave the negative's arguments. Judges will not consider arguments that they believe are made in bad faith (super tricky to actually enforce, but I essentially mean that I don't believe tech > truth). Theory arguments are allowed but it's not Plan A for either team and there are no RVIs. The negative does not have to defend the status quo but there are limits to neg fiat centered around fairness (counterplans are generally allowed, but condo, certain PICs etc are not). I think some of these things catch people off guard, but it makes sense to me. Counterplans and theory and even some kritiks are logically sound conclusions of the same logical principles that traditional debate is founded on. It doesn't make sense to me to say, "This argument is logically sound and follows the instructions we've given, but we don't like it and so it's not allowed." But that doesn't mean that I like people spreading or buy the premise of kritiks that argue that ignoring the debate round we're supposed to have in favor of voting to endorse some cause is actually going to produce a measurable difference in the world (other than people quitting debate).
*re: "There are physical limits and questions of ability that preclude people from speaking that quickly..."* Absolutely. I do not think speed should be allowed in the game. If two teams want to be fast and neither is upset about it, I won't intervene. But I don't think speed makes the game better. *re: "...resource barriers that prevent people from reading through the mountains of K literature that exist..."* Sure, those barriers exist. But the question is: should a debater who reads more have an advantage in debate? I think the answer to that should be yes. There's absolutely an equity gap there, but I think that needs to be bridged by increasing access to literature for everyone (I'll say it on this channel again, I think copyright is complete nonsense). I don't think the solution is to discourage the students who are reading because of debate from reading. More reading is good. More understanding of philosophy is good. Using a misunderstanding of Nietzsche to auto-win debate rounds because your opponent doesn't know what a kritik is or how they're supposed to respond to it is not good. But as far as the reading and incorporating of philosophical literature itself goes, I'm absolutely in favor of it. Argumentation is philosophy. There are arguments people make that don't pass any serious level of philosophical scrutiny. I don't want to discourage or exclude that scrutiny or depth of analyzing the underlying assumptions of an argument. I hear supposedly smart people (looking at you, Sam Harris) say shit like, "Well, if you just assume that GOOD is what brings pleasure and BAD is what brings pain, then ethics is just a scientific and mathematical question that we can solve for with modern brain analyzing technology." I think that's incredibly shallow thinking, and I don't want debate to prepetuate that same shallow model of ethics. Like, yeah, if you assume that then the rest follows. Those are horrible assumptions. *re: "... and stylistic barriers that make tech rounds utterly inscrutable to some people."* Agreed. I think the issue here is not the issues we talk about in theory arguments but the jargon we use when we do it. It doesn't help that so many (most?) debaters use at least some of this jargon incorrectly, making it even more confusing for everyone who's trying to have the conversation. With that said, I think it's possible to have the same discussions we have in theory arguments in a much less opaque way. I'm trying (hoping) to develop a model of debate that doesn't involve any jargon and where arguments have a universal structure, but which still allows you to have the same advocacies as we currently do with advantages, counterplans, topicality, kritiks, or whatever else. But yes, that is a fair criticism of the current state of "tech" debate and part of the reason we made this channel. *re: "Obviously there are problems with a lot of trad debate, but that emphasis on narrative and strategy is its own kind of skill that I'd argue leads for just as high quality debates as tech rounds just on different metrics."* An emphasis on narrative and strategy is something I am 1000% down for. "Narrative and Strategy" could have been my nickname as a debater. I don't know if any videos exist of me as a debater. I think I saw a short clip once. With that said, I don't think "traditional debaters" go nearly far enough into strategy as I'd like, especially in events like Public Forum.
Hey folks! Just a heads up. This video is not intended to be fully digested in one sitting. The video is meticulously split into a bunch of little chapters based on what I talk about. You can just skip around, or watch little segments and come back later.
If there's anything covered in this analysis that you would like a seperate video dedicated to, just let me know! Also let me know what other rounds you'd like to see an analysis for.
Fantastic analysis. Another round I would be intrigued to hear you break down would be the 2022 NSDA final for Public Forum. There’s a lot of interesting strategy decisions that are made that I would love your perspective on.
Great analysis! I thought your musings on traditional debate were interesting. I am curious though-when you say that neither trad debate nor ultra techy K debate are your favorite "styles", what *is* your favorite style? To me, it seems like most debate falls along one of those two extremes, for better and for worse.
I'm also curious when you describe the arbitrary nature of trad rounds-I am a big trad shill so I feel compelled to weigh in when nobody asked me to-I would posit that tech rounds are equally arbitrary, just in a different way. There are physical limits and questions of ability that preclude people from speaking that quickly, resource barriers that prevent people from reading through the mountains of K literature that exist, and stylistic barriers that make tech rounds utterly inscrutable to some people. Moreover, the fast that a lot of tech rounds have equivalently weighted claims (you drop some part of Condo/T/etc therefore you lose) which presumably gets read on both sides means that sometimes decisions just come down to which norm the judge personally preferred on whatever theory shell was extended. Not often, mind you, but it absolutely can happen. Equivalently to the inverse, Trad rounds still can get decided on the flow, and still get evaluated on semi-objective metrics of the truth value of content, which is more than you can say for a lot of nuclear war scenarios in tech rounds. Obviously there are problems with a lot of trad debate, but that emphasis on narrative and strategy is its own kind of skill that I'd argue leads for just as high quality debates as tech rounds just on different metrics.
Hey Will! I just wanted to let you know that I tried answering your question (it's a great question) but after hours of making the timestamps for this video my brain is officially too fried for me to write a good response right now. I'm gonna circle back and answer this tomorrow, lol.
Okay, I'm back. Appreciate your patience, lol.
First, let's get into most debate falling in the spectrum of traditional to ultra techy K debate. I don't quite agree with that.
*re: "To me, it seems like most debate falls along one of those two extremes, for better and for worse."*
I guess I would say the various debate "styles" are the different combinations of answers to a specific set of questions. This would probably be a great topic for a video, but just riffing off the top of my head, those questions would probably be:
1. Does the aff have to defend the topic?
2. Can the negative make arguments that attack the affirmative for reasons not directly related to the topic?
3. Does the aff have to propose a plan (or specific method of implementing the topic)?
4. If not, can the aff propose a plan if they want to?
5. Can a debater win the debate by arguing in-round that something their opponent did was unfair or bad for education?
6. Does that actually have to be true in order for them to win or can they win the argument on something like drops?
7. If someone unsuccessful accuses someone of cheating, should they lose just for that?
8. Are drops concessions?
9. Does a judge use their own discretion to determine if evidence is reliable?
10. Does a debater's identity affect who wins the debate round?
11. Does a debate round have to be intelligible to a lay audience?
12. Is it fair game for a debater to use speed as a tool to win?
13. When a topic is about a policy action, does the negative need to defend the status quo?
That's just off the top of my head. I think something like this would make a really great survey to send out to a ton of debaters and judges to get data on what people think and how it correlates to the debate event they do, their region, their level of experience, etc.
Anyway, I think there's a lot of sets of answers that degree with each other significantly but are still painted with the same wide brush of "techy" or "progressive".
For example, there are debate styles that are very open to spreading and theory, but not kritiks. There are kritikal styles that are performative and not open to spreading. I don't think it works to say these styles exist at different places on the same 1-dimensional line.
*re: "what is your favorite style?"*
That's a really tough question to answer.
Think about it from the perspective of a different competitive game, like a competitive video game. I'm imagining Tekken, you can imagine whatever.
There's the question of what you do in order to be successful in the competition, and the question of what you want a game to reward you for doing.
If there's a significant enough difference from what you want the game to be from what it is, you just wouldn't play the game. But with most competitive games, there's a significant number of players who aren't fully satisfied by the game and the current "meta", but it's still a game they like overall (and/or there's no better alternative that scratches the same itch). For more on this, see my video on game design in debate.
So, you could be asking what style of debate I think is the most effective. But I don't think that's what you're asking. So I guess I'll answer the question of... what are the things that I most wish were the norms and "meta" of debate?
Well, in that scenario, no one would be spreading. Kritiks would be much more rare and framed much more strongly around their solvency than just talking about things that have big impacts. The affirmative would have to directly defend the topic in such a way that they can't handwave the negative's arguments. Judges will not consider arguments that they believe are made in bad faith (super tricky to actually enforce, but I essentially mean that I don't believe tech > truth). Theory arguments are allowed but it's not Plan A for either team and there are no RVIs. The negative does not have to defend the status quo but there are limits to neg fiat centered around fairness (counterplans are generally allowed, but condo, certain PICs etc are not).
I think some of these things catch people off guard, but it makes sense to me. Counterplans and theory and even some kritiks are logically sound conclusions of the same logical principles that traditional debate is founded on. It doesn't make sense to me to say, "This argument is logically sound and follows the instructions we've given, but we don't like it and so it's not allowed." But that doesn't mean that I like people spreading or buy the premise of kritiks that argue that ignoring the debate round we're supposed to have in favor of voting to endorse some cause is actually going to produce a measurable difference in the world (other than people quitting debate).
*re: "There are physical limits and questions of ability that preclude people from speaking that quickly..."*
Absolutely. I do not think speed should be allowed in the game. If two teams want to be fast and neither is upset about it, I won't intervene. But I don't think speed makes the game better.
*re: "...resource barriers that prevent people from reading through the mountains of K literature that exist..."*
Sure, those barriers exist. But the question is: should a debater who reads more have an advantage in debate? I think the answer to that should be yes. There's absolutely an equity gap there, but I think that needs to be bridged by increasing access to literature for everyone (I'll say it on this channel again, I think copyright is complete nonsense). I don't think the solution is to discourage the students who are reading because of debate from reading. More reading is good. More understanding of philosophy is good. Using a misunderstanding of Nietzsche to auto-win debate rounds because your opponent doesn't know what a kritik is or how they're supposed to respond to it is not good. But as far as the reading and incorporating of philosophical literature itself goes, I'm absolutely in favor of it.
Argumentation is philosophy. There are arguments people make that don't pass any serious level of philosophical scrutiny. I don't want to discourage or exclude that scrutiny or depth of analyzing the underlying assumptions of an argument.
I hear supposedly smart people (looking at you, Sam Harris) say shit like, "Well, if you just assume that GOOD is what brings pleasure and BAD is what brings pain, then ethics is just a scientific and mathematical question that we can solve for with modern brain analyzing technology." I think that's incredibly shallow thinking, and I don't want debate to prepetuate that same shallow model of ethics. Like, yeah, if you assume that then the rest follows. Those are horrible assumptions.
*re: "... and stylistic barriers that make tech rounds utterly inscrutable to some people."*
Agreed. I think the issue here is not the issues we talk about in theory arguments but the jargon we use when we do it. It doesn't help that so many (most?) debaters use at least some of this jargon incorrectly, making it even more confusing for everyone who's trying to have the conversation.
With that said, I think it's possible to have the same discussions we have in theory arguments in a much less opaque way. I'm trying (hoping) to develop a model of debate that doesn't involve any jargon and where arguments have a universal structure, but which still allows you to have the same advocacies as we currently do with advantages, counterplans, topicality, kritiks, or whatever else.
But yes, that is a fair criticism of the current state of "tech" debate and part of the reason we made this channel.
*re: "Obviously there are problems with a lot of trad debate, but that emphasis on narrative and strategy is its own kind of skill that I'd argue leads for just as high quality debates as tech rounds just on different metrics."*
An emphasis on narrative and strategy is something I am 1000% down for. "Narrative and Strategy" could have been my nickname as a debater. I don't know if any videos exist of me as a debater. I think I saw a short clip once. With that said, I don't think "traditional debaters" go nearly far enough into strategy as I'd like, especially in events like Public Forum.