Terrible Turns

December 10, 2006

There are two LD turns that turn my stomach.

One is when an opponent says, “This argument doesn’t make sense,” without any explanation. If that is the turn of choice, shouldn’t there at least be a reason given as to why that is true. Saying it doesn’t make it so. When a debater puts a case together, I firmly believe that whatever is in it has a point and purpose. So every argument makes sense and the opponent must show through reason and logic why it’s not applicable.

The other turn that bothers me is the one I primarily want to discuss at length. This is when the term “Abusive” is used. I don’t know who invented this term or why it is even a part of LD debate, but hopefully after this article, it will be used less and less. The theory is that if both sides can’t use the Criteria to their advantage, that’s an abuse. But isn’t debate by definition, a conflict of interest. Neither side needs to worry about whether their opponent can use their Critieria or not; the important thing is making a case which can be proven true through logic and real life examples. For example, I want Societal Good. In order to get it I want Unlimited Freedom. So through Unlimited Freedom, I get Societal Good. My opponent also wants Societal Good but it can only come with Restrictions to Freedom. Well according to the theory we can’t debate because our Criteria can’t be used on both sides. So what should I do, not debate and lose the round? Or should I cry abuse all through the debate and hope a TOC judge will agree? No, I should show why I best provide for Societal Good and how giving Unlimited Freedom is the best way to do it as compared to Restricting Freedom. Why don’t I just use Maximization of Freedom and solve the problem for everybody? I don’t want to because it would change the meaning of my case in order to make my opponent happy. Maximization of Freedom still implies that there are restrictions. That feeds right into my opponent’s case. Why should I give my opponent ammunition to use against me? It doesn’t make sense.

Now let’s apply this theory to real life. A democrat wants to run for office on the grounds that he wants the troops pulled out of Iraq. However, his republican counterpart wants to keep the troops in Iraq. Oh no, so now they have to debate. The democrat claims that by pulling troops out we can bring about Societal Good in the US. The republican claims that keeping troops in Iraq is the best way to provide Societal Good. They both want societal good, but should the democrat refuse to debate because he can’t use “keeping the troops in Iraq” as his criteria? Are you kidding? If that happened, he obviously would have no chance of being elected. I know! Why doesn’t he just use the Maximization of Troops? This way both of them could decide how best to maximize the use of troops. This wouldn’t work either because the democrat wants a complete pull out and by using Maximization of Troops, it suggests that there may not be a complete pull out. It also changes the intent of the democratic stance from one on a complete pull out to one on how should the troops be utilized. This would greatly favor the republican who wants to utilize the troops in Iraq. The point being, there is no such thing as an abusive Criteria. If the opponent feels he can’t debate because of the criteria, he probably doesn’t even understand his own case that well. Imagine our politicians crying foul because their opponents are giving them arguments that are abusive.

Learn to turn and avoid this problem.