TIME FOR A CHANGE

Alan Coverstone

1990 - Space Exploration: The Policy Frontier

For as long as most of us can remember, high school debate has operated under the familiar 8-3-4 time limit format. The familiar 2 to 1 ratio of constructive to rebuttal length has become accepted as a given in the activity. It has been an assumed rule for so long that most people give little thought to the idea that debate can occur using any other format. Debaters have become so used to this format that some have argued that if certain rules are altered, the unthinkable will happen - "time limits will be altered!"

Having judged many debates at the high school level over the last three years, it has begun to occur to me that the familiar time limits may be placing undue strains upon other activity as it is practiced today. Many of the argumentative and logical thinking skills which debate offers to its participants are being compromised by an unbalanced emphasis upon the technical abilities of the debaters. This imbalance is perpetuated by rebuttal time limits which are too short in real time for complete arguments to be explained and debated in any depth at all. The time has come for the high school debate community to take steps to ensure that its educational goals for the activity are incorporated into its practice. Five minutes rebuttals are an excellent step in the right direction.

The 8-3-4 format with which we are all so familiar, places an extreme premium on the ability to "cover" the arguments of the opposition. Because of the extremely short nature of the rebuttals, there is a tendency to place a greater emphasis upon simply responding to each argument than upon the quality of that response. Debates are too often evaluated based upon arguments which are simply dropped. Since a dropped argument tends to become a "good" one from a competitive standpoint, debaters will try to make more arguments than their opponents can cover rather than trying to make better arguments than their opponents can answer. This does not, nor should it, mean that the debater who does not cover lacks in any way the skills necessary to participate in debate. A "fast" negative team can often make "too many" arguments in the block to be physically answered in a four minute speech.

The simple process of adding one minute to the rebuttals can help to correct this imbalance. While the technical aspects of debate remain important, the likelihood of completely dropped arguments is reduced. As it becomes less likely that a team can win debates with bad arguments which are simply dropped, the result is a shift to arguments which have logical and persuasive superiority. Because teams more frequently have to win or lose the debate based on the quality rather than the number of their arguments, better arguments are selected and more development of those arguments occurs.

Another problem which the 8-3-4 format perpetuates is an overemphasis upon evidence. I am, of course, not arguing that evidence is unimportant or that is role in the process should be reduced. Rather, what is needed is for the debaters' skills of argumentation to be enhanced so a= they are brought into balance with the importance of evidence. Because of the time constraints imposed by the four minute rebuttal, "codes" like 'Johansen in '88" have come to replace the arguments which the authors originally developed. While evidence is extremely important to the support of the arguments in the debate, a code should not be allowed to replace a clear understanding of the author's argument or the ability of the debater to articulate the logical progression of the argument.

My proposal is an 8-3-5 time format; a format which provides the debaters with more time in the final rebuttals in which to articulate and develop arguments. Rather than simply reciting numerous taglines and codes and letting the judge put together the final "overall story" after the debate, the debaters would be able to weave all of their arguments into a final, persuasive conclusion. 'Me extra time would facilitate comparisons of positions by the debaters, and they would be able to perform that comparison for the judge during the debate rather than for their coach and teammates in the hall. Debaters do not need to be penalized for not making good arguments. They only need to be taught what makes a good argument and given the time to present it

The five minute rebuttal, because of the improvements it brings to the process, serves to enhance judge objectivity. A "good" decision is one which is based solely upon the argumentation contained in the debate itself. Given the incredibly short sentences and codes which characterize the current four minute rebuttal, it is often impossible to arrive at any decision based solely upon the content of those speeches. Debaters who think they should have won a debate they lost almost universally take exception to what they hastily refer to as judge intervention. What is the judge to do? The judge has been handed an hour and a half box of square puzzle pieces. A subjective determination on the part of the judge is often the only way to assemble the puzzle. As a result, the losing team is angry, the winners are euphoric, and neither team is educated.

As argued earlier, the five minute rebuttal better provides for quality arguments and the time necessary for debaters assemble their version of the puzzle. The judge can then compare two versions of the puzzle (rather am an infinite number) and arrive at a decision based solely on the relative quality of each team's package of arguments. While this "enhanced objectivity" is good from the standpoint of competitive fairness, it more importantly furthers the educational benefits of the activity. Comparing two clear stories on their relative merits is far more educational than the creation of an argumentative pot luck.

Having explained how the five minute rebuttal will help to further the goals of debate, I next turn to an important side benefit of the change. A constant problem against which debate must guard is the shrinking of the participant pool. While the five minute rebuttal is no panacea for this problem, it is a step in the right direction. Many debaters and programs which are just learning the process can become discouraged by their inability to achieve competitive success in a "reasonable" period of time. Many intelligent students with much to add to the activity are discouraged from participation by the fact that their substantive, reasoned arguments don't receive a hearing, outweighed as they are by underdeveloped yet "technically" competent verbiage.

Anything which debate can do to expand its participant pool should be pursued in order to better the activity as a whole. Expanding rebuttal times will not guarantee more early victories, but it may reduce discouragement as beginning debaters are more able to understand the process. Although this is a lesser justification for the change, if anyone remains in the activity who would have left discouraged, the entire change is worth it.

Any time a format change is proposed there are those who voice their objections. Some argue that the five minute rebuttal would do nothing to improve the process since the negative block would also expand. This objection is in error for three reasons. First of all, the ration of 1 AR to block time would be shifted slightly in favor of the 1AR. The shift is not great enough to unfairly advantage the affirmative, but it is enough to reduce the number of debates won on simply dropped arguments. Secondly, the real time for the 1AR expands. Most 1ARs don't need more arguments per se. What they need is time to clearly articulate the arguments which they are making. Five minutes would allow them that time. Finally, even if this objection proved true in practice, it would still fail to undermine the important advantages which are accrued by five minute 2NR/2AR speeches in terms of argument completion, logical thinking, and judge objectivity.

Another fear of opponents of this change is that the 2NR will simply use the extra time to extend more disadvantages. Upon examination, this objection also proves inaccurate. Although the 2 has more time, one must not forget that the 1AR has more time too. Improving the quality of the 1AR's arguments forces the 2NR to increase the quality of his or her arguments as well. In addition, the 2NR who fails to construct a coherent reason for decision is beaten by the extended 2AR who has ample time to highlight the deficiencies in the opposition's arguments.

The final objection voiced to this proposal involves the difficulty in changing rules at the high school level. This is not a reason to ignore the 8-3-5 format. If bureaucratic inertia is strong, grass root groundswells can be stronger. Each tournament host who would like to see five minute rebuttals should run Ws or her tournament in that manner. If everyone waits until someone else has done it, nothing will ever get done. Changes of this nature do not occur from the top down. Once every tournament during the year is employing the 8-3-5 format, the local and national rule committees will soon follow.

A short time ago, every tournament at the college level ran on the 10-3-5 format. However, once individual tournaments began to adopt the 9-3-6 format and the community realized its merits, the transition occurred in a relatively short time. After several individual tournament hosts had changed their format, the NDT committee quickly changed the format for the national tournament as well. Once this happened, the remaining tournaments also changed. The successful change in the 2:1 ration at the college level provides empirical proof that change can occur and that it can have positive benefits upon the activity.

The process has begun at the high school level as well. The Kinkaid School in Texas has run its tournament using five minute rebuttals. Contrary to popular belief, the activity did not fall apart. In fact, the debate coach at Kinkaid, W. Paul Newman, reported nothing but positive comments from those participating. In addition to 'Me Kinkaid School, the national Earlybird tournament held at Wake Forest University will employ the 8-3-5 format in the fall of 1990. Several other programs are contemplating the switch as well. Each tournament can make the change if it so desire.

This article is not intended to focus attention on the "evils" of debate. I am not a doomsayer who tries to find fault with the activity. Quite the opposite is true. It is my hope that the use of an 8-3-5 format in the high school debate community will help to enhance the positive aspects of the activity and further its educational goals. While it is my sincere hope that this article will generate discussion and debate within the high school community, I further hope that it will not end there. It is possible to improve what is already an excellent activity. The five minute rebuttal is a step in that direction.