Introduction: The Role of Debate in University Education

1. Debate as Intellectual Inquiry

Debate is a structured argument about whether a proposition should be adopted. A proposition, also known as a resolution, is a statement about something that exists or should exist. Usually, debate is about the future. “Resolved: The US should terminate all public funding for gender-affirming surgery” is a statement about a policy that is the subject for debate. “Resolved: Reproductive freedom is a basic human right” is a statement about a value that is up for debate. However, some debates are about things that exist now, such as “Resolved: global warming is a threat to the environment.” This is a proposition of fact.

The standard debate format involves two sides: affirmative, which argues for the proposition, and negative, which argues against it.^[1] During the debate, both sides will present reasons why they should prevail, which are known as contentions. Each side will also present criticisms of the opponent’s arguments, which are called responses, and rebuttals of to the other side’s critiques.  (Often all responsive arguments are called rebuttals, so don’t worry about the distinction.) There may also be cross-examination, which involves a debater from one side questioning a debater from the other side for a limited period. In most debates, there is a designated judge or adjudicator, which could be one person, a panel, or even the entire audience.

Debate differs from informal argument in many ways, but one of the most important is through its time limits. In a typical two-person debate following the Lincoln-Douglas (or LD) format, the affirmative speaks first, presenting its case for the resolution in 6 minutes. The negative then presents its case against the resolution and critiques the affirmative’s arguments in a 7 minute speech.^[2] Then the affirmative rebuts the negative’s criticisms and critiques the negative’s arguments in a 4 minute speech. The negative’s second and last speech is 6 minutes long, in which it must respond to the affirmative’s rebuttals and critiques of its position. The affirmative’s last speech is a 3 minute rebuttal.

Total speaking time for each side in the usual LD format is 13 minutes, even though the affirmative has one more speech. Note that the affirmative speaks both first and last, as the prosecutor does in criminal cases, which may seem to give it an advantage. However, this must be balanced against the burden of proof, which is always assigned to the affirmative. Much as a prosecutor must convince a jury of a defendant’s guilt, the affirmative must convince a judge to adopt the proposition. If the judge is not convinced, the negative wins the debate. Essentially, this means that the negative side wins ties (and even really close debates). The affirmative’s advantage in speaking first and last gives it an extra chance to convince the judge that the resolution should be adopted, but the speaking time for each side is the same.

The structure of a debate–and of the arguments therein–closely resembles a point in a tennis match. The affirmative serves up a contention, the negative hits back with a response, the affirmative rebuts the response, the negative responds again, and the affirmative gets the final hit or rebuttal. The difference is that just because the affirmative gets the final say doesn’t mean it wins the point. The affirmative’s response may be too weak to get over the net, or it may be irrelevant, which is like a hit out of bounds. You will see more clearly in the discussion of flowing a debate how this progression of arguments works.

In competitive debate, the judge applies a ballot or rubric that lists the categories for evaluation. These categories typically include organization, evidence, argumentation, refutation, and delivery. The debate is won by the side that attains the highest score based on total points awarded. Note that winning on evidence, argument and refutation does not necessarily mean victory in the debate. A well-organized and polished debater sometimes prevails because of its score on organization and delivery as long as the debater is close to the opponent in other categories. However, in most debates the person who makes the better arguments will prevail.

The structured arguments need to win debates help students deepen their understanding of the issues they are debating. Because debate is competitive, participants are incentivized to find the best evidence and arguments to help them win. In addition, the creation of affirmative and negative cases also helps students organize their writing, developing another skill essential to good communication. Debating also engages students in active learning far more than in typical discussion-based classes. And debating is fun, as I have found as both a student debater and a teacher of debate in college courses for over a decade. There is often a lot of humor in debate as long as the participants are supportive of each other and recognize that opponents’ arguments against their case are not personal attacks.

In addition to developing analytical skills, debaters develop important skills in extemporaneous speaking. Formal prepared speeches are rare today, as most oral discourse requires the ability to “think on your feet” and respond rapidly. Students develop these skills in debate since they are required to rapidly respond to a series of arguments by their opponent. While their first debate may be daunting, over time the students become more comfortable with speaking about a variety of arguments with very limited preparation time. Cross-examination also helps them hone their extemporaneous speaking skills.

With all these benefits, why are debating courses rarely taught in American universities? There are basically three reasons. The first is that debate is often viewed as a skill rather an academic subject. It is something that students could do in a variety of courses–although formal debates are rarely assigned. But it does not have an academic home, as does expository writing, another communication skill. Expository writing courses can easily be integrated into the English department curriculum, whereas public speaking has no natural home in universities without communication departments.

The second reason is that teaching debate requires a greater time commitment from instructors than most other courses, especially with large classes. I have found that when the class size exceeds six some debates must be scheduled outside regular class time if students are to have multiple opportunities to debate. Repeated debates are essential so that students have the opportunity to learn from their inevitable mistakes in their first debates.

The third reason is that many competitive debate formats have been plagued by an overemphasis on the quantity of arguments rather than their quality, leading to the proliferation of spreading and a general disinterest in debate. While this is more true of competitive debate, there are formats that permit students to gain the advantages of debating without having to speak as if they are calling a horse race. This book presents what I believe is the best format.

2. Values Should Be an Essential Part of Debate

Most people debate informally throughout their lives. Toddlers debate whose superpower doll is stronger; adolescents debate who is better at Xbox games; parents debate what school to send their children to; senior citizens debate who has the better Medicare Advantage plan. If two people disagree about how to resolve a particular issue, they might attempt to resolve the issue through an informal debate.

Unfortunately, many debates fail to resolve anything. Often participants have different goals, so they end up with no way to resolve the dispute. Their arguments and rebuttals fail to convince because each is seeking different values. And if they fail to discuss their values, the debate might end up nowhere close to resolution. That’s one of the big problems with debating formats that focus on how to solve public policy problems without looking at the values that determine which policy to choose.

Many competitive debate formats suffer from this problem. Topics usually focus on policy changes that promote some values but disregard others. Most affirmative cases assume that utility is the criterion that should guide those choices, and most negative cases adopt this value without discussion. But is utility the only value that should be considered in deciding between the two positions? What about individual rights? Or simply doing the right thing? If a major goal can achieved at a cost of a few lives, should those lives be sacrificed in the interest of overall utility–or do they matter more than whether utility is maximized?

There are several formats used for intercollegiate debate, but the Lincoln-Douglas format is the only one to explicitly require  both sides to set forth their value or criterion for deciding the debate. In some cases, the two sides agree on the value, and the debate can proceed on the question of which alternative better achieves that value. If the two sides disagree on the value, then they must debate which value is better for deciding the resolution, and the adjudicator must first choose what value should be given priority and then assess the alternatives according to that priority.

As an illustration of how this works in practice, consider the topic Resolved: the United States should abolish the death penalty. The affirmative might (1) adopt a utility criterion and claim that the abolition of capital punishment would both save money and reduce the murder rate, or (2) argue that under a human rights criterion the government should never sentence a criminal to death due to the risk of wrongful execution and the possibility of rehabilitation. If the negative also adopts utility, the debate will concern whether the adoption of the resolution would achieve greater overall utility for the people of the United States. However, if the debaters’ values differ, the debate will address what should motivate public policy: maximal happiness or adherence to moral standards? The judge will then need to decide which value should apply to the resolution and then which alternative better meets that standard.

This complicates some debates because they must take place on two levels: which criterion should control the decision on the resolution, and whose case better meets that criterion. Both sides must address both values since they cannot assume their value will be chosen as the one that will govern the debate. The affirmative must argue that abolishing the death penalty will both produce greater utility and yield the correct moral choice, while the negative must argue that it would reduce utility and constitute the wrong moral choice. This may be difficult to do in the allotted time but it avoids the problem of having to resolve a debate with incommensurable values.

Because debaters need to decide what value is most appropriate for the resolution, they need to consider the purpose of the resolution before they start formulating arguments. Arguments that might be appropriate for a utility-based approach might be irrelevant to an approach based on Kantian or Rawlsian values. For example, the argument that capital punishment deters future murders would fit with utility maximization, but not with a Kantian approach that requires treating individuals as ends and not means to the satisfaction of others’ goals. The argument that capital punishment should be rejected because of the risk of executing innocent defendants would meet with approval in Rawls’ original position but not under a utilitarian approach that views this risk as worth the cost of some lives. Thinking about what value should control a decision about capital punishment not only encourages students to think about political philosophy but also to apply philosophical principles to resolve public policy issues.

The values offered in this book create a core of substantive knowledge for a course on debating. Without this discussion of values, a debate course might become just a compendium of debating skills appended to a series of debates on various topics. Students who study LD debate by using this book will learn about four important value systems in addition to the knowledge they gain in their research on the policy topics chosen for their debates. The chapters in unit 3 of this book thus serve the dual purposes of teaching political philosophy and providing sources of values that can be used in LD debate.