10 Things I Like and Don’t Like, featuring Yale ’18 (Bob Overing)

And, we’re back! Yale was a really fun tournament, even if hectic and long. Premier Debate alums and Premier Debate Team members performed well, and I was back coaching finals this year! Congrats to Valley AJ for winning and Cambridge AG for placing 2nd. I wasn’t at Greenhill but coached a little bit from afar, and I’m super proud of our campers and coachees at that tournament as well. There’s a new topic and new metagame, but in some ways the more things change, the more they stay the same…

So without further ado, my first of the season, Yale Special Edition, Zach Lowe-inspired 10 Things I Like and Don’t Like!

#1 SO18’s Inherency Problems, Redux

In my initial post on the topic a few weeks ago, I said that topical debate would be hard because of the unspecified actor/action in the context of shield laws, which are widespread at the state level. Whether the aff defends an expanse of existing shield laws in the 50 states, a federal shield law, the status quo, or something else makes a huge difference even to non-consequentialist debates.

This is distinct from ASPEC on most topics because the neg could always debate ‘plea bargain abolition good/bad.’ Here, ‘shield laws bad’ doesn’t clearly negate because the aff could defend the status quo, so absent a counterplan, ‘shield laws bad’ lacks uniqueness. This issue arose in several debates I saw over the weekend. Take for example an international law aff. If the aff defends an action, that action could be in violation of international law; if the aff doesn’t, then the neg has to prove the U.S. is currently in violation of international law. The evidence required is distinct, and a 1AR could easily answer ‘shield laws violate i-law’ with ‘non-unique: s’quo has shield laws.’

While I only saw one debate (finals) where the aff explicitly defended the status quo (in CX), aff vagueness definitely warps pre-round prep. If they might defend the status quo in CX, that could eviscerate a lot of blocks and require a counterplan, which could lead to a theory debate, etc. Add that to the inherent problems of status quo affs (aff advantages are disads to nothing until the 1NC, neg counterplans can totally reset the debate beyond the way counterplans normally do, and the status quo on this topic is messy because of variations in state legislation).

From watching debates and reading a good bit of literature, I think this topic should be about a federal shield law. Status quo affs aside, other advocacies are possible but (a) underlimiting in plan options because they involve 50-ish states acting in different directions (some might be strengthened, some weakened, etc.) and (b) overlimiting in neg options since they might be so small and squirrely that most neg generics are untenable. The federal context expands ground since both sides can argue national security, Trump/White House and other stuff, and politics/base/generics more effectively.

#2 Metagame Shifts, Sensitivity to the Topic?

The Yale metagame was different and strange based on what we’ve seen in recent years. It might not have felt like a seismic shift to coaches and competitors, but I looked at all the affs of all competitors in octas, and this was the breakdown:

• 16% Kritik Affs
• 55% Framework Affs
• 29% Consequentialism Affs (All Util)

This is weird. Really weird. Last year at Blake (2017), which has a pool similar to Yale, the breakdown of debaters in triples was:

• 17% Kritik Affs
• 26% Framework Affs
• 57% Consequentialism Affs (Almost Zero Util, Mostly Oppression/Structural Violence)

Framework and Consequentialism are essentially flipped. There could be regional differences, but most West Coast debaters will go to CPS rather than Blake, so Blake is really an opener for many eastern teams. Plus, all but 3 debaters in octas of Blake 2017 were either east coast or attended Yale. There could be also differences because my Blake analysis was based on triples not octas, but I doubt that tells the whole story.

One hypothesis is that the metagame is more responsive to the topic than I previously thought. There was much better stock consequentialism / oppression aff ground on plea bargaining than on this topic. That caused convergence to the “crash” aff. In contrast, at Yale, every consequentialism aff I judged seemed a bit of a stretch, and there’s no obvious link to oppression and structural violence like on a CJS topic. If the shift means debaters are responsive to the topic, that’s encouraging. It means debaters are flexible, and if we can get even better topics, we’ll get better debates.

A downside to a framework-heavy shift, however, is that right now these debates tend to have pretty weak clash. A framework expert can produce a new aff that dodges common answers and requires very specific pre-round prep for the neg(debating agonism is very different than debating international law, virtue ethics, testimony, etc.). The top debaters will prep for specific framework affs, but for most of the pool, when framework is a weak style, there won’t be much engagement. And it’s much more true for framework heavy affs than topical K affs and consequentialism where the neg has a plethora of applicable generics. So, while I’m happy to see shifts in the metagame, they might cause more generics over topic debate and the proliferation of T/theory. Whether that outweighs the convergence on a single stock consequentialist aff is another question.

Also worth noting is the dearth of specific plans on the new topic. Last year on plea bargaining, we had a number of viable plan affs early on the topic (immigration, sexual assault, etc.), and this year, I don’t see any of that. The East Coast has always been light on plans, but I’m not sure what explains the shift from Blake last year.

#3 Flexibility Par Excellence

On the neg at Yale, I saw a lot more Ks and general flexibility. I’m excited to see wikis that include Kant, some version of pessimism, counterplans, util, etc. because it means debaters are bridging stylistic divides and giving themselves more strategic options. The quality of debates will generally be much higher than if debaters stick to one style in every round. If you read Kant against a util aff, fine, but if you read it against a K aff that doesn’t defend the topic, there just isn’t going to be much clash. It’s certainly possible to have engaging debates like that, but they won’t be as frequent or successful as reading another kritik, for example.

#4 Decrease in “Frivolous” Theory?

There was a good bit of theory at Yale, to be sure. Topicality, ASPEC, spikes, etc. But overall, I felt like I judged few of the most frivolous shells, e.g. the combo/multi shells that effectively say “you did a lot of things in the 1NC and that’s hard for me,” spec status, and other clear examples of running theory for the sake of it. I don’t know if this is a trend; it’s hard to track without full disclosure or surveys, but I wasn’t rolling my eyes as much as I normally do, especially on the East Coast.

#5 The Status of Disclosure Norms

LD disclosure norms are becoming so strong. To my knowledge, only two debaters in the bid round at Yale disclosed below normal amounts, but even then, when asked, they would tell you about their arguments or even disclose on a round-by-round basis, which is better than the stonewall some teams used to give. Coaches who 2.5 years ago would refuse to flip are now seeking out opponents to flip, even if they aren’t as immediate as they could be. Things are going great.

Our norms are almost where they need to be. Open source might be the best solution in the long term, but short of that, we’re pretty close. A few areas for improvement include disclosure of analytics (I’ve previously griped about this, and it’s especially true when they’re round altering, like ‘aff theory outweighs’), disclosure of case answers (at least carded ones), and disclosure of underviews.

The last one—underviews—is particularly important because in clash-of-styles debates, the underview might be the whole locus of case debate. They might change the debate radically, such as a util aff with a priori arguments in the underview. I think most debaters disclose underviews, but if there are changes from round-to-round, we need to be more diligent about disclosing those changes, even if the bulk of the aff is the same. It is somewhat annoying to see a wiki with “Aff v1,” “Same Aff v2,” … “Same Aff v10,” but we should err on the side of more information, not less. I and my students have said at times ‘same aff, different underview’ or ‘some changes to the underview,’ rather than spell out the exact changes, and that’s pretty common in LD. But that doesn’t mean the norm shouldn’t change.

I’m a bit ambivalent because good underview decisions can’t be made until an assessment of the opponent’s wiki and past 2NRs is made, which requires pre-round prep time. It also means if the aff has 10 spikes, going through with the opponent and saying ‘we’re reading 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and some new ones,’ which can get tedious and messy (“No, you said 12378, not 12367!” “Oh, you were looking at v2, not v3…”). But on the other hand, if the underview is long and includes framing, it can substantially warp the debate, so it really should be disclosed.

#6 Not a Lot of Filming

One of the best ways for debaters to learn is to watch rounds, and my camera that I’ve used for just about four years is on the verge of collapse. And it only works about half the time anyway. We might have a few rounds from Yale to upload, but until I get a new camera, I can’t put up a bunch more rounds on our YouTube. If anyone has rounds they filmed from Yale, Greenhill, Loyola, or Grapevine, please contact me and we’ll get ‘em online for our wide audience pretty quickly.

#7 Open Race at the Top

From judging, coaching, and hearing others talk about the top debaters in outrounds at Yale, I felt that there were a lot more debaters in contention to win the tournament than usual. The finalists were quite good, but not unbeatable. I wouldn’t have been surprised to see any of the bid-getters in finals, and even some of the debaters who lost in octas probably could’ve made it. None of the top five speakers even bid! They’re all great and will probably bid at other tournaments, but this is a good sign that rounds will be especially competitive this year at the top. I have no idea who will win Bronx next month, and anyone who says they do isn’t paying attention to the results.

#8 The Spikes, Always the Spikes

As I and other have said countless times on this blog, the aff theory spikes are so ridiculous. Everyone knows it, yet almost everyone does it. They are the most egregious enthymemes in LD debate because not only do they skip necessary premises, they skip terribly false ones. In no possible world does time skew imply aff theory always outweighs, no 2NR theory, neg only gets one unconditional route to the ballot… on top of… aff RVIs, aff presumption, aff drop the debater, etc. etc. etc. The modest view—that theory paradigm issues such as these are determined by round context and factors other than the 4 minute 1AR—is simply true. Is it possible to defend these spikes? Maybe. Do debaters do it well? Definitely not. And these debates are bad. Harder to affirm or harder to negate is block-driven and pretty settled at this point, rendering much of these debates pure sophistry.

The problem is coming up with the appropriate response. I think what I argued to Marshall is essentially right: spikes test the neg’s ability to flow, and the neg should be able to answer bad arguments. That’s on them. Discounting aff argumentation because we don’t like it would be unfair. But there’s unfairness on the other side too, which is giving these enthymemes more weight than they’re due.

Marshall’s view is that spikes don’t really test skill at all, so negs get new 2NR answers. I have pragmatic objections to this approach, but the general idea that spikes’ centrality need be reduced seems true. Spikes deliver an outsized advantage. The warranting is so, so thin, and the conclusions are so, so strong. If we allow “aff skew means aff theory always outweighs,” we’re committed to a radical tabula rasa that justifies arguments like “my disad has more cards than their advantage, so it’s epistemically prior.”

I’ve already moved against spikes from where I was four or five years ago by allowing more embedded clash. For example, ‘aff theory outweighs’ clashes with the neg’s T/theory standards, aff ROBs/ROB choice and other framing clash with neg K ROBs and framing. The neg needn’t answer those explicitly. Part of the solution is to treat most paradigm issue spikes as clashing with opponent’s standard-level arguments, rather than evaluating those debates in a vacuum.

Embedded clash is a start, but it might not be enough. ‘One unconditional route to the ballot’ and ‘neg theory args are counter-interps’ don’t as obviously clash with the neg’s strategy, so they’re effectively dropped if not answered in the line-by-line. This means decreasing their importance. Without a better theoretical framework, I’m left to consider them poor enthymemes and simply adjust how I judge them. If there’s a missing internal link (from time skew to whatever), even if dropped, it’s not an argument. This is pretty extreme, and I don’t do it in other areas of judging, but the level of spikes is still too high.

For more on spikes, see here, here, here, here, here, here… I’m sure there’s more I’m missing.

#9 16-Hour Days

Holy moly. Yale Day 2 was a bear. I like debate as much as the next person—probably more—but 7AM to 11PM is just impossible. I was so wiped by the end of it, I felt I could barely give a coherent RFD. I’m probably part of the problem because I decide rounds notoriously slowly, but they really should do another debate on Friday or Sunday to ease the burden on Saturday. I know of only one or two other tournaments that go so late.

Five rounds in a day is tough, especially with a pool of that size. It also hurts debates because you end up getting elims with 10 or 15 minutes of prep. For finals, we only had 10 minutes of pre-round prep! No tournament is perfect, and Yale is pretty good overall, but I need my sleep and my pre-round prep.

I’m still recuperating.

#10 The Funniest Argument All Weekend

I was judging Stuyvesant CL v. Scarsdale SH. SH reads the “spikes on top” shell, which says theory spikes must be at the top of the case, not the bottom.

CL responds, “No abuse: you can just turn your laptop upside-down and the spikes will be on top.”

I lost it. Okay, maybe it’s not the funniest thing ever, but about the funniest thing I’ve heard in a theory debate in a long time. Kudos!