The Discussion Model of Debate

The Discussion Model

By Trapdoor (iykyk)

I write this to describe a different model of debate. What if we were to center pedagogy instead of technique? What if we were to think about the game in a radically different way? 

Every game is determined by the norms and protocols that determine structure its rules and institutional culture. What makes debate interesting is that the institutions that govern it are often not in the room while the game is played, and the rules only exist insofar as they are enforced. The asymmetrical relationship between the judge and debaters allows for interventions at every step of the process. Yet while debaters often try to break the game, they run into the problem that there is no precedent for what an altered state of the game could look like. What does the ballot mean? What about speaks? What about time? So many questions, and so little time or experience with adjudicating rules on the fly in the moment to resolve it. Given that, I want to present an alternative vision of a debate round. I write this as a living document, one to start conversations instead of end them, a taste of something otherwise. So I present to you the discussion model:

Structure of the round:

1ac: 9 minutes

c/x: 3 minutes

1nc: 9 minutes

c/x: 45 minutes 

Prep: 10 minutes

2ar: 6 minutes

2nr: 6 minutes 

What does this look like? 

For the debaters there are three phases of the round: Presentation of evidence (1ac and 1nc), Discussion (c/x), and Closing Remarks (2ar and 2nr). 

During the presentation of evidence phase the affirmative and negative read their 1ac and 1nc as they would in any other round. There is a c/x before the 1nc such that the negative team can hone what the affirmative is articulating so that they can know what arguments to make. 

During the discussion phase both teams will have a conversation about the arguments presented. Perhaps this will lead to evidence comparison, or a discussion of debaters positionalities, or question about alternative solvency in relation to the affirmative. The judge pays attention to the course of the conversation, as the conversation moves across flows and parts of the round. Debaters do the adjudicating for themselves, taking turns asking questions or making criticisms. 

Once 45 minutes ends both teams have 10 minutes to prepare their final arguments. Through looking at how the conversation evolved, each team preps their final speeches at the same time. This means that the 2nr immediately precedes the 2ar. 

During the Closing Remarks both teams articulate why they have won the round. The 2ar starts first, as the affirmative must articulate their advocacy in the context of the conversation that was had. The 2nr then follows on why they have won the round in the context of the conversation. Just like all speeches, judge instruction and impact comparison are incredibly important. 

The judge then makes their decision, an RFD is articulated, and a winner is decided. 

What is the value of this model? 

A model of debate that centers discussion is a different texture of clash, one where the disagreements end up being much smaller but much more nuanced. It allows the space to bring in historical contextualization, the defining and clarification of terms, and discussions about the relationship that debaters have to their arguments given their positionalities. 

It is important to understand that debate is a rhetorical activity, yet contemporary policy debate prioritizes a very narrow set of rhetorical strategies. In non-competitive settings we very rarely have the opportunity to “outspread” the people we are talking with to prove our point. There are many ways to be persuasive, yet debate only access a narrow aspect of being a persuasive speaker. 

Discussion is a skill, a muscle we need to hone through practicing it. Constantly we are put into situations where we have tense and philosophical dense conversations, and learning how to control the conversation and track the ways that your opponent are attempting to shift the conversation is a valuable skill to learn alongside the increased nuance to our discussions. 

Structural Limitations 

A debate round is a performance, a dance of rituals and assumed intuitions about what it is we ought to do. If we are to articulate a different way to utilize the space that is a debate round there are three structural concerns that must be thought through: The Ballot, Tabroom, and competitive incentives. 

The Ballot: Debate is a game with a winner and loser, but what it means to win and lose is highly contextual. While it does signal a win or a loss to taproom, it is also a moment where the judge organizes the space and places an adjudication about what happened and their perspective on it. The ballot doesn’t have to be shy’d away from, it can be embraced as a moment of imperfect but valuable criticism. 

Tabroom: This is perhaps the biggest concern. Debate rounds can feel like a magical and insular world where we can create a new world of thought, it is one debate of many occurring at a tournament. Time is felt in different ways by different people, but Tab’s clock imposes itself and judges (understandably so) rarely can or want to fight against it. That being said, tab is rarely in the room. We can be sneaky when no one snitches. Tab doesn’t have to know what’s going on. As long as this moment fits into the constraints of the time allotted for the round there is no reason this model doesn’t work. 

Competitive Incentives: While competition is not the thing that is guiding the creation of this model, it is inevitable that our competitive drive plays a role. It should not be our primary concern, but it is a concern that can be worked around. People often accuse discussion debates to be aff biased it means the aff controls the conversation, but the model I have proposed resolves this by making sure the aff does not speak last. The necessity for the 2ar to redefine itself in the context of the present conversation helps with this, as well as having there be a cross ex before the 1ac. However the primary competitive concern is about flowing. Are there such thing as a dropped argument here? Yes and no. Because the only arguments permitted in the 2ar/2nr are ones that were mentioned in the conversation there is a limited amount of content that can be pulled through the round, which deters people from making entirely new arguments. 

Assumptions

I want to be clear that I am coming at this from a deeply biased perspective. This idea has emerged from many rounds of inching towards the otherwise. I am of the belief that Education outweighs Fairness. While debate is a game, what makes debate a game worth playing over other games is its capacity for political education and developing skills of rhetorical persuasion. I believe this model access both of those better. I do not believe this should be the dominant mode of the game, rather one of many options about how we could move through this activity. 

Within this model, prior to any framing arguments, the role of the affirmative is to prove to the judge that they should vote affirmative and the role of the negative is to prove to the judge that they should vote negative. The resolution and the topic is not the locus of the discussion, the affirmative and the discussion that ensues is. That being said Framework can still function in this model, it just no longer becomes a procedural question and is instead a framing argument about the nature of debate and how we have engaged in it. 

Concerns 

I would like to recognize that this model has the capacity for violence. Anti-blackness and transphobia are rampant in this community and we cannot pretend that people come into conversations on equal footing. As a result of people’s subject positions our arguments are perceived in unequal ways, and discussions in debate setting can escalate very far very fast. While debate should be a space for growth and compassion, pedagogy that comes at the expense of others is still violent no matter how well meaning or well intentioned. 

I also recognize that this model places a lot of burden on the judge. Let’s be real, most judges are here for the pay check or because of obligation. Hungry, tired, sleep deprived, a normal policy debate round is already a big ask. There is a massive amount of judge intervention in this model, as rounds are less self explanatory and decisions require much more thought. Debaters should ask themselves what role they want the judge to play and if they want to participate in the discussion. 

This model should only be pursued if every debater and judge involved is willing to accept the risks of what could happen. When you throw away the rule book there is nothing to turn to, things get messy and hard. Every person involved should take a moment to recognize their emotional capacity. Its okay to say no to this model. Saying no should not be seen as an inability to discuss, but a recognition that this isn’t the time and place to discuss. 

Closing Remarks

All of this being said I still think, when the conditions are right, I believe that this model could produce something beautiful. Debate is a ritualistic set of norms and protocols, and we have little experience thinking or doing anything otherwise in it. A shot in the dark, a leap into the abyss, but one that could be worth it. There are so many things we can do with words, as it takes just a few simple syllables to create or destroy a world. What if we were to do it all differently. 

Love and power, <3