Why is fairness relevant? Perhaps the better question is whether or not we should continue to answer challenges to the purpose of the activity with calls to procedurals (especially when those procedurals have been relaxed for positions like internationally fiated, solvency advocate-less multi-plank counterplans).
Why might reasonability be the preferred paradigm for evaluating theory debates? See the continuation of the debate from the first iteration of this article.
Some debaters feel comfortable with one position, and roll with it for the entirety of the topic. However, in this article I’m going to talk about something a bit broader than just diversifying the positions you go for – ideological flexibility can be useful as well.
This post is meant to address what seems to be a longstanding and ongoing problem in Lincoln Douglas debate today. The quality of clash in topicality debates have seemingly decreased.
Debate is being ruined by the overuse of buzzwords. They make the round arbitrarily less accessible to both judges and debaters and are a leading cause of misunderstandings about literature as well as contradictory argumentation.
How can we have these debates in a way that preserves access? Notice that I did not say comfort, I said access. The extent to which a debater is comfortable with particular content is not indicative of whether or not that content has resulted in inclusion/exclusion for that debater.