Steps for Clarity in Your Debate Round by: Isaiah Depp

As a Debater, your task is to clarify the round into a single, clear question to debate. Following are several steps to help you so…

Locate the conflict. In the resolution The individual right to property ought to be valued above a community’s economic interest, community and individual interests are both to be valued when possible. However, there are some situations where both cannot be attained simultaneously. The conflict, then, could be visualized as a Venn diagram: you have two circles, Individual Property and Community Benefit, which have a little bit of overlap. The majority of each circle exists independently of the other, but there is some grey area. That grey area is the conflict and is the ground for debate. When can a community’s economic interest be valued at a cost to individual property rights?

Additionally, there may be things that are valid areas of conflict on paper, but are better not to debate. It could be argued that taxes to build roads, which facilitate economic exchange and thus increase economic interest, is an area of conflict. However, I (and some judges) would dislike a Negative case that brings this up, not because it is technically incorrect, but because it is trivial. Taxes for this purpose are so firmly accepted that making the debate about “taxes versus no taxes” leads to a one-sided debate. This is not bad simply because it is “unfair” in some sense of the term, but because it shifts the debate away from the issues that make educational debates for both the debaters who must defend their stance and the judges who see the exchange between both sides.

Identify the actor. Take the resolution apples ought to be valued above potatoes. Who exactly is valuing these two things? It could be the individual purchasing the food, the store retailing the food, the farmer growing the food, or even a government dictating which crop should be prioritized. If you are an individual, you are concerned with nutrition, taste, and price; you weigh based on your own personal values and preference. If you are the store, you are concerned with demand, revenue, shelf life, and some legalities; you would judge by the store’s benefit. If you are the federal government, you are concerned with national benefit and GDP but also what is within the just scope and duty of the government. Even though one thing is better, it may not be right for a particular actor to enforce it.

Most resolutions do not specify an actor, leaving it open to interpretation. Still, some interpretations are better than others – I expect that most debates on the economic resolution will use a government actor. If this is contested, many debaters would argue that the government is the only entity with the authority to value something at a cost to individual property rights. If an individual uses a portion of his private property for the community’s benefit, this is an exercise of his right to property and hence is not an instance of conflict.

Find the stasis. You and your opponent may disagree on many things, but what do you agree on? Take a likely example in a conservative homeschool league: besides agreeing that the debate is worth having, you probably agree that the government should not exercise absolute authority over private property. You agree that individual property rights should be upheld by default. You agree that there are times when someone’s property rights can be limited by the government, given a specific justification. You agree that political order and national security are such justifications. But do you agree that the economic interest of a community is a justification? At this point, you should have clearly defined the community’s economic interest – Are we referring to GDP? The capacity for economic exchange? The standard of living? Reduction of poverty? If we take the last definition, your disagreement could be on whether it is the government’s job to alleviate poverty. People will fall on either side of this question, and it may be the initial point at which you and your opponent disagree. It is also possible that you do agree that the government should try to alleviate poverty, in which case the question is can the government use economic means to do so? In either case, we just traced each of your shared beliefs to your last shared belief, and then to your first point of disagreement: this is called the stasis. If you form your arguments around the stasis and win it (that is, persuade the judge that you are right on this question, at least within the context of the round), then the rest of your case will follow. Additionally, finding the stasis in any conversation is not simply a technique to “win” an argument: it shows that you are listening and that you really care to engage with the opposing viewpoint.

Ideas have consequences. Your disagreement on the stasis leads to further effects down the road, which eventually impact policymaking. If you can find the consequences of an idea in real life, such as public policy, you will better understand, and explain, the nature of the ideas. What policies would put the community’s economic interest above individual property rights? For any relevant theoretical or historical example, you should determine which thing was valued and also come up with a (plausible) idea of what might happen if the other thing were valued in the same situation.

It is here necessary to address an unfortunate controversy in the debate community. It is widely believed that Value Debate concerns itself only with philosophy, and looking at the consequences of those philosophies is only for Policy Debate. However, looking at ideas without considering their consequences is like removing oneself to a location in space with negligible gravity with a paper plane and a rock, and philosophizing over what each one will do in the presence of atmosphere and gravity. You can write a dissertation loaded with fancy words that no judge would ever want to read, or you can go to earth and throw them. You are still analyzing the two things, just as you are still comparing the two philosophies – you are simply using the most rational tool to do so: reality.

To conclude, as you are starting to formulate a case, or fine-tuning your existing cases, consider who the actor of the debate is and what the main areas of conflict are. Seek to understand the major schools of thinking about the topic. You will find that often even those you disagree with are responding to a valid concern (for instance, some socialists may be responding to real corruption in capitalism). When you encounter differing views on the resolution, note the strong points made and good questions raised in each philosophy – never completely dismiss a school of thought. You will want to have a good idea of what the main stasis will be, but remember that you will be surprised by some cases, and will have to identify the stasis in the round (an excellent exercise for conflict in real life). And then, do more research and preparation.