The 1990s and the Evolution of Debate
By: Bill Southworth, The University of Redlands

In 1948 three giants among college debate were asked to list their "Worst Faults of Debaters." Amazingly even back then "great minds thought alike." Thus, E.R. Nichols of Redlands listed first "Insufficient research or lack of adequate preparation." Martin Holcomb of Augustana placed at the top "Repeated assertions without proof." And finally Glenn R. Capp of Baylor had as his primary fault "Overstating conclusions---drawing sweeping conclusions from insufficient evidence---extravagant claims."1In doubt these three coaches would have this same fault in FIRST PLACE if they were listening to rounds in the 1990's. However, they might suggest the cure has been worse than the disease. To say debate has changed over the past fifty years is stating the obvious, but to what end?

Many changes have been cosmetic. Clearly the departure from the West Point location in 1967 signaled meaningful administrative alterations. Under AFA guidance the NDT Committee has expanded the tournament in size (1968 from 38 to 46 with the addition of 8 After-At-Larges; 1973 from 46 to 62 with addition of 16 First Round At-Larges; finally in 1986 expansion from 62 to 74 teams.) Changes in how the competition was administered were also made (in 1973 high-high power matching in all rounds was reduced to only rounds 5 &7; strike sheets for elimination round judges and later preference ranking of judges for the prelims were a facet of computer tournament management.)

However, changes such as these did little to alter the substance of NDT Debate itself. Those changes have evolved, some might say degenerated, for debate of the 1990's has very little similarity to that of the 1940's, 50's or even 1960's. At my last NDT as a debater, way back in 1969, I can remember listening to David Seikel and Mike Miller from Houston, a team which had been in the final round of every tournament they attended that year lose their final debate to Harvard. Harvard read a total of 32 quotations and Houston 30, and I remember thinking it was a "big," "fast," and "furious" debate. Just four years later in 1973 I watched as Northwestern defeated Georgetown, and each team read double the number of quotations their contemporaries had read four years earlier. When I judged the 1984 Final Round between Dartmouth and Louisville that number had doubled once again, and a 192 total quotes were introduced into the debate. In that debate the 1NR read fifteen quotes and the 1AR read eleven which combined for more quotes than were read by all the debaters in either the 1949 or 1952 NDT final rounds. Once cracked, there has not been an NDT final round in which at least 100 quotes have not been read. One can only assume that Professors Nichols, Capp and Holcomb could no longer complain about unsupported assertions.

However, they might begin to criticize the ability of debaters to effectively communicate their arguments and evidence. Modern statistics suggest, as the number of quotes read increase so too did the words per minute spoken. Even from as early as 1949 debaters were speaking fast, over 200 words per minute. However, by 1990 they were speaking 318 word per minute and reading seven times the number of quotations. It does not take Charles Darwin to establish that evidence has become the focus of the speaking time in debates. If there is one clear trend it is the preeminence of evidence as both a tool of practice for debaters and a tool of principle for judges.

The course of such evidential emphasis are not as easy to isolate. However, I can say with certainty that when I debated judges did not read evidence after the debate AT ALL. I can also say with certainty, that by only my second year of judging I know I was reading "some," "several," "numerous" quotes after debates. The positions were becoming more sophisticated and dependent upon comprehension of many arguments and much evidence, not single examples. I can also say with certainty that by 1975 virtually all judges were reading evidence before rendering their decision. I would submit that once judges began "the reading process" to justify their decisions, debaters also recognized the ever increasing qualitative and quantitative importance of evidence in any given round. It is not coincidental that judge preference sheets began to focus upon those individuals who were "post debate readers."

While the introduction of the computer has made tournament administration easier and more accurate it has correspondingly had the same impact on the debate research. LEXIS enables debaters, even at the tournaments, to constantly update and expand their data base. These and other technological advances are placing even greater emphasis on evidence. During the next fifty years debate may evolve into a computer game where debaters simply print their argument, access the relevant evidence, and send them simultaneously to the opposition and the judge, who needs to talk?

The next page statistically establishes an upward spiral of quotations read and words spoken per minute. It is probably not fair, or even possible here, to assess the merits of such a trend. Professors Capp, Nichols and Holcomb would undoubtedly be proud of the research skills and depth of knowledge debaters now acquire as a result of their involvement in the activity. They might, however, be less satisfied with the communication skills these same debaters employ to transmit their information. If the pendulum has swung too far, perhaps the next fifty years will produce another competitive stimulus to bring us back to a more satisfying balance.

1 The Debater's Magazine, Autumn, 1948, p.111.
Reprinted from: Allan D. Louden and William Southworth, eds. The 50th National Debate Tournament.Winston-Salem, NC: Wake Forest University, 1996